Posted by rain:

He played 23 minutes and shot 5 of 6 from the field, he had 3 assists, and 3 rebounds.

He scored 13 points in 23 minutes. Look at the box before you let your preconceptions sway you towards making a bad argument. Relax.


[Edited by - rain on 11-29-2005 12:27 AM]

It was a friggin blowout!!! How many points did he score before we were down by 26? Thoses points are meaningless.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by rain:

He played 23 minutes and shot 5 of 6 from the field, he had 3 assists, and 3 rebounds.

He scored 13 points in 23 minutes. Look at the box before you let your preconceptions sway you towards making a bad argument. Relax.


[Edited by - rain on 11-29-2005 12:27 AM]

It was a friggin blowout!!! How many points did he score before we were down by 26? Thoses points are meaningless.

crawford played 7 mins in the 1st half.
in the time on the court, he played sg with nate handling the ball. during that time, they really didn't run any curl play or set him up offensively. he was totally misused last night and as of late. saturday's 2nd half is a prime example of how it should go - craw and steph sharing the ball and pg duties with nate playing off the ball. obviously lb doesn't want that as it wasn't run at all last night.

that's a damn good question?

People just want him to play to his potential. 85% of his shots are jumpshots (according to 82games.com). With his speed and ball-handling, he needs to stop being a wuss and attack the basket very aggressively.

And to think, the Crawford trade was just the 3rd worst that Isiah has made behind the Marbury fiasco and the Curry disaster.

I would have rather have had 4 lottery picks and all that room under the salary cap.

Posted by joec32033:

Let's get this str8, just for poops and giggles. Last season, Craw was constantly nailed for not shooting efficiently, not passing enough and not being able to run the offense, and not playing D....Now he is shooting more efficiently, running the offense, passing more, and playing something resembling defense, and not taking as many crappy shots and shots overall in general and we are NOW upset because he isn't shooting enough?!?

Are we being a little obssessive compulsive today?

[Edited by - joec32033 on 11-29-2005 12:38 PM]

He is only shooting slightly more efficently 42% is not exactly lights out. His passing is worse - 2.9 assists 2.4 turnovers compared to - 4.3 and 2.1 last year. "Resembling" is the key word. Basically he was not very good last year and he's not very good this year. He's got potential blah, blah. He's coachable blah, blah. He is basically the same player he was when we picked him up. I'm still hoping - but that cause I'm a fan.

Posted by OldFan:

Posted by joec32033:

Let's get this str8, just for poops and giggles. Last season, Craw was constantly nailed for not shooting efficiently, not passing enough and not being able to run the offense, and not playing D....Now he is shooting more efficiently, running the offense, passing more, and playing something resembling defense, and not taking as many crappy shots and shots overall in general and we are NOW upset because he isn't shooting enough?!?

Are we being a little obssessive compulsive today?

[Edited by - joec32033 on 11-29-2005 12:38 PM]

He is only shooting slightly more efficently 42% is not exactly lights out. His passing is worse - 2.9 assists 2.4 turnovers compared to - 4.3 and 2.1 last year. "Resembling" is the key word. Basically he was not very good last year and he's not very good this year. He's got potential blah, blah. He's coachable blah, blah. He is basically the same player he was when we picked him up. I'm still hoping - but that cause I'm a fan.

Not to make this a Craw vs. Marbury thing because I want them both to succeed as long as they wear the blue and orange, but you have many many guys here pushing for Crawford to knock Steph out of his spot and off of this team so that.......I guess so that Steph would be gone. They hate him, and he is our best player by a mile and a half.

Crawford has consistantly played poorly and has had about 2 or 3 good games out of 14. That is consistantly bad. Hopefully he will play big against his former team. Curry too. Most importantly I hope we win, but for our long term success, he cannot continue to play like a loser, hes gonna have to give us 15 ppg at least.




[Edited by - Killa4luv on 11-30-2005 12:59 AM]

Posted by SlimPack:

crawfords numbers are only worse becuase he's playing less minutes and becuase of the adjustment to brown's system, its the same thing with marbury (just thought I'd mention this since people seem to be conveniently forgeting thats steph's numbers have fallen off too). crawford hasnt had any fewer "bad" games than marbury. they'll both probably put up better numbers once they get comfortable playing in brown's offense.

[Edited by - slimpack on 11-30-2005 08:56 AM]

In my mind the problem isn't only numbers and the problem isn't that Crawford is playing worse then last year.

THe problem is Crawford wasn't good last year and wasn't good before that and he continues not to be good.

We acquired him for his potential. We were hoping his level of play would rise - it hasn't. To me that's the problem.

You can't get by with a two guard who consistently takes bad shots, makes bad decisions and plays bad defense. His potential is great he's quick, he got a good handle and when he is taking reasonable shots he's not a bad shooter. But he hasn't put it together into an effective consistent game.

Posted by joec32033:

His game is totally different this year, stats may not reflect the improvement but his game is MUCH more efficient than last year. He is learning and right now we can't ask for more.

It is more efficient in that he is taking less shots and making a higher percentage. It is less productive in that he is scoring about 5 less points per game. Our second option cannot score 12 ppg if we are going to win. That is my point, bottom line. Efficiency is one thing, production is another. Consistancy is the icing on the cake. We need all three, not one or the other. At this point Frye is more efficient and productive than him. Crawford was brought here as a replacement for H20, and counterpart to Steph. He is not fulfilling his role and that is my main point. Maybe you and other guys are happy with him so far, but how I see it, whatever he is doing is not enough, imo.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 11-30-2005 1:24 PM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by joec32033:

His game is totally different this year, stats may not reflect the improvement but his game is MUCH more efficient than last year. He is learning and right now we can't ask for more.

It is more efficient in that he is taking less shots and making a higher percentage. It is less productive in that he is scoring about 5 less points per game. Our second option cannot score 12 ppg if we are going to win. That is my point, bottom line. Efficiency is one thing, production is another. Consistancy is the icing on the cake. We need all three, not one or the other. At this point Frye is more efficient and productive than him. Crawford was brought here as a replacement for H20, and counterpart to Steph. He is not fulfilling his role and that is my main point. Maybe you and other guys are happy with him so far, but how I see it, whatever he is doing is not enough, imo.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 11-30-2005 1:24 PM]

Dumb premise by Isiah. Crawford wasn't a very good 2 guard in Chicago, why would he be any better in NY?

and before you say well he avg'd 17, look at the amount of shots he put up especially from 3. 39% streak shooter who is undersized for the 2 and plays 0 defense was not the perfect compliment to a non-physical zero defense playing Marbury?

[Edited by - McK1 on 11-30-2005 2:05 PM]