I'll make this long and sweet.

1.) If it were up to Larry, and published reports recently have reiterated this, he would rather have a pure PG running the show as opposed to Marbury or Crawford.

2.) Option B would be to simply give in and let Marbury play point as he always has, and rely on Q Rich to play the off guard.

3.) That, in turn, would mean Jamal is coming off the bench and playing both positions for around 25 MPG.

4.) And THAT would mean Timmy is gone, plain and simple. Larry would never accept a 1,2,3 of players that are all below-average defenders. Team defense alone cannot salvage that.

5.) But what if he decides to move Marbury to SG permanently? What if he really does bring in a pure PG like the rumors are suggesting? Well, that, as a matter of fact, would be the best case scenario for CRAWFORD, and here's why:

If we can bring in a David Wesley or Eric Snow, both defensive-minded, team oriented PG's, that would free up both Marbury and Crawford to play minutes at either position, knowing that our backcourt defense won't be as much of a liability. Now, granted, there are other option besides guys like Snow and Wesley. Earl Watson is said to be a solid perimeter defender as well. But my point is, and I'll say it again, bringing in a defensive-minded PG would give a certain cushion for Larry to give Crawford and Marbury significant minutes. And just like Isiah's been saying all along, it doesn't mattter who's designated what guard position. So an Earl Watson or Eric Snow could be designated the PG, but maybe Marbury or Jamal are handling the ball. As long as that defensive presence is there alongside them, Larry doesn't have to worry, and Crawford doesn't need to be traded.

That's all folks!

[Edited by - bobs3304 on 08/04/2005 13:29:22]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not picking on you bobs, but...

Posted by bobs3304:

I'll make this short and sweet.

1.) If it were up to Larry, and published reports recently have reiterated this, he would rather have a pure PG running the show as opposed to Marbury or Crawford.

I think you may be (mis) reading what you have heard and read...here is what brown himself had to say.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/ny-spmarb314366133jul31,0,3505706.story?coll=ny-basketball-headlines

Asked if he will do the same with Marbury, Brown said: "I don't know. I grew up when you had two guards, two forwards and a center. I would love that. Not put any one guy totally responsible. The growth of all the players would be more dramatic.

"You'd give the ball to your two-guard once in a while. It would make [Jamal] Crawford better if he handled it a little bit."

Doesn't look like he's too interested in a Pure point.

2.) Option B would be to simply give in and let Marbury play point as he always has, and rely on Q Rich to play the off guard.
Now you are talking
3.) That, in turn, would mean Jamal is coming off the bench and playing both positions for around 25 MPG.
preaching to the choir so far
4.) And THAT would mean Timmy is gone, plain and simple. Larry would never accept a 1,2,3 of players that are all below-average defenders. Team defense alone cannot salvage that.
Not right away, but by the deadline I see LB grooming Ariza to assume that role (btw, ariza is alrady on the knicks)
5.) But what if he decides to move Marbury to SG permanently? What if he really does bring in a pure PG like the rumors are suggesting? Well, that, as a matter of fact, would be the best case scenario for CRAWFORD, and here's why:
see above, he's not going to move Marbury to SG permanently. He's not bringing in a pure PG (what happens to Nate?) and he's leaving the back court as it is.
If we can bring in a David Wesley nope, difference between him and nate is?or Eric Snow slow, washed up, both defensive-minded....

I gotta vehemently disagree buddy.


That link....said nothing.....at all. All it told me is that Larry is looking into moving Steph to SG, and letting Crawford play SOME minutes at PG.

It also happened to say that Larry likes more traditional PG's.

Are Eric Snow, David Wesley, and Earl Watson premier PG's? -- NO. Why does that work perfectly for us? -- b/c it guarantees Crawford the minutes he deserves, all while ensuring that most of the time, neither him or Marbury will be on the floor together. You DON'T put 2 shoot-first guards on the floor together. The ball will never be moved around, which Larry insists. And to think that Larry can turn either player into a pass-first guard is ridiculous - Iverson is still a shoot-first guard, always has and always will. It's the intangibles that Larry has a part in.

I'm all for bringing a defensive-minded, pass-first PG. In my mind, that's Earl Watson or Eric Snow, both of whom will come cheap.

To address the Nate Robinson situation - he'll get his....but in time. I can def. see him getting 10 MPG next season, but it shouldn't be a problem b/c both Earl Watson and Eric Snow aren't the type that log major minutes.

i think, based on LB's comment of how jamal's "ball handling ability is severely underrated", i think the starting backcourt will be jamal and steph with Q coming off the bench.

i think brown likes both his guards to be able to handle the ball and create, something Q can not do. in fact, i would suffice to say that Q may be the odd man out here and could be the first one moved.

Posted by rvhoss:

I think TT is already the odd man out...Q played the 3 in phoenix.

i don't think TT gets bench in his contract season - at least not until february and historically, brown's SF's were long athletic defenders.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 08/04/2005 13:55:49]

Posted by bobs3304:


I'm all for bringing a defensive-minded, pass-first PG. In my mind, that's Earl Watson or Eric Snow, both of whom will come cheap.

I wouldn't mind bringing in Watson, but I have to say, I don't think he'll come cheap. It'd have to be a S&T for something over the MLE.

If we really want a cheap defensive PG, why not give Frank Williams a call?

Frank Williams would work too, although he's obviously not as talented as Snow or Watson.


But I'm glad you see my point. You HAVE TO have balance in your backcourt especially, b/c it's your guards that are responsible for setting up the offense and dictating where the ball goes.

[Edited by - bobs3304 on 08/04/2005 14:41:40]

^ All that means is that Marbury will play the 2 and be able to handle the ball in any given situation.

But whoever's the designated PG is obviously gonna be able to handle the ball, whether that's Crawford, Nate, or Snow/Watson.

What it really comes down to, though, is 2 options.

Either we leave the backcourt as it is, and get rid of Timmy ASAP (moving JYD to the SF spot and Q Rich to the 2), or you realize that team defense alone does not win games. You, without a doubt, need a defensive in the paint AND on the perimeter.

Detroit won b/c not only did Brown get EVERYONE to buy into the team defense concept, but he could rely on guys like Billups and Ben Wallace as soon as he got there to come up with stops. And of course, it doesn't hurt to have Larry Brown as your coach if you're already an average defender.


Option 2 would involve landing a pass-first, defensive-minded PG like Earl Watson or Eric Snow, which would no longer make our backcourt a liability. Timmy would be moved in a trade for him, or he could simply stay behind if not involved in that deal.

Here's a thought:

Tim Thomas, Mike Sweetney

FOR

Lorenzen Wright, Earl Watson (MLE $$)


Point is, I like Crawford, and I wanna see him do well in NY. But if you as fans are depending on Larry Brown to turn him into something he's not, then you're gonna be waiting a long time. Brown will improve our team defense without a doubt, and will rub off on impressionable youngins like Ariza and Nate, but Marbury and Crawford are the players they are, plain and simple. In order to ensure our backcourt isn't a defensive liability in certain situations, you have to bring in a PG that A.) can defend flat out and B.) won't take minutes away from Nate and Crawford.


Guys: Please stop being dillusional. I'm not talking a roster overhaul here, just some fine-tuning. If you're not open to that, then that's just sad...


[Edited by - bobs3304 on 08/04/2005 14:57:50]

Posted by tapseer:

All this talk about trading Marbury or switching him to the 2 is getting tired. I can clearly see I'm in the minority in my admiration of Marbury and that's ok. My main point is that I didn't this much talk about our PG when we had Ward, Childs, Eisley, Harper, Cheeks, Sparrow, or any other PG. Marbury is not a bum, and listening to Stephen A Smith (the only media guy that gives Marbury any props) Marbury CAN play both positions and be dominant. He put Marbury second only to AI in terms of bringing every night. He ended his segment that he'll support Marbury before he' turn on him. Ya'll guys talk about him like he can't play and even if you did trade him or switch him with Crawford, you're downgrading the position...for what?

Tapseer you're not alone. I too feel that Steph gets WAY too much blame for what's been going on. Lets face it, he's not a warm and cuddley guy and the Media HATES him. He can play a pass 1st style, in fact if any of you have really paid attention you'd know that he doesn't just come out and start shooting. He looks to get his teammates off early and only starts to take over when its necessary. His highest scoring qtr was actually the 3rd qtr.

I just think a lot of this is blown out of proportion. He's making so many passes that get wasted by guys missing shots and layups or turning the ball over like TT did a LOT last yr. How much better do you think his assists would be if he had a healthy H2O instead of the low % shooting JC last year. We didn't really have a strong post game so there goes more easy high % baskets we didn't get. Still with all of that the Knicks were 14th in the league in PPG and 11th in the league in FG%. If he was so bad how did he manage that with a team as poorly balanced as they were.

a couple things... earlier in his career MArbury was a good defender. Tony Parker once said MArbury was the hardest guy to play against on both sides of the floor... that was after the Pho/Sas series a couple years ago. He can play D, we have seen him do it.

Another thing is nobody knows who a "Larry Brown" guy is. He's LOVED some guys that were clearly NOT the media's perception of what an LB type guy is. If you think there is a blue print please explain Derrick Coleman or Mark JAckson. Selfish me first players with attitude? Like Sheed Wallace?

We can disect this all day... lets just give LB talent and see where the chips fall.