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

starting lineups do matter...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
12/2/2005  11:27 PM
how many times do we have to start the game and be down 10 midway through the first?
how many times do we have to start the 3rd quarter and be down 10 five mins into it?

Q, rose, mo, AD combined for 23 points. that's 4/5th's of your starting lineup. we played tough in the first half but that unit in the 3rd killed us.

you look at the box score and you see who gets the majority of the minutes but i don't buy that argument of "it's not who starts, it's who finishes." who finishes usually are the best players in that particular game. but who starts sets the tone of the game, be it playing with a lead or playing from behind.

Q KILLED us in the 3rd quarter.
rose KILLED us in the 1st quarter.

and i'm not just talking about this game.

there are two people that deserve to start every single game and that's craw and frye. so that leaves the SF and C position. curry's nagging injuries look to be a common theme this season so hopefully holding him out longer will mean he'll be around at the end otherwise, they might go with james eventually. so that leaves SF and i think that'll go based on matchups. but not starting craw and frye is just inexcusable.

talent wins. and when your best talent doesn't start, you're already playing from behind.

we played great vs. detroit but if that unit starts in the 3rd, then we don't score 8 points that quarter.

i'm thinking it's not going to change until the 15th of december as Q has to get minutes to show he's healthy. same goes for rose and mo as we try to move them.
AUTOADVERT
Nalod
Posts: 71911
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
12/2/2005  11:40 PM
Thats the thing, they started just fine, but that 3rd period. 3rd period against Bulls was our period.

This team is hard to judge.

Hindsight is easy. I think Craw should start, but Im ok with Rose. He has been playing well.

other thing is rookies may be too jumpy. This was a big pressure game given national coverage, the whole larry thing, Walton pregame talks like his is still relevant (I loved him as a player, had dinner with him when he played for the Clippers, very cool dude, but I hate him as a broadcaster!) and the vets SHOULD have done better.

This was not our game to lose, but lets put it this way, I don't disagree with you, but our kids are not ready to get 35 minutes, but they are getting there! We are so much further along washing out players and getting our rooks experience. I never thought the vets would suck and the rooks (all players under 23 yrs old) would be this effective so early in the season. Anyone think Frye would be ROM? In the first month never the less.

I hear you DJ, but im not so sold that starters are all that important! Yet.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
12/2/2005  11:45 PM
starters for last game was steph, nate, rose, frye, AD.
difference is nate and frye. you put in q and mo, we probably go down in the 3rd as well.

i understand why he didn't start the young guys in detroit but it's CLEARLY evident that they're our best players. frye looked a little overwhelmed early but quickly settled in and looked like a vet. give Q, rose, and AD a QUICK HOOK as we have suitable and BETTER backups. lb stuck with them too long in the 3rd.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/2/2005  11:50 PM
I would like to add that Frye should start every game from here on out, screw this starting people in their hometown nonsense. If anyone should have lost their starting spot to Taylor it should have been Rose or Davis. Frye is already better than Rose or Davis or Taylor, and I think he will be better than any of them ever were in a year or two.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
martin
Posts: 79069
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
12/3/2005  12:03 AM
I kinda disagree with you'all. I LOVE the rotating starting lineups. Here's why.

- Larry is winning the hearts of his players. He is a demanding guy and this is a way he can reward the guys. I would guess that they appreciate that. They play hard, they practice hard, they get more minutes and/or start.

- I think he is starting the rooks WHEN he can. Against a weak Chicago...yes. Against a strong Detroit....no.

- Larry wants to play his young guys as much as possible but with the favorable matchup. If there is a bruising SF, start Rose and don't let Ariza fail. If you have a quick PG that is not too much of an offensive threat, start Nate and let him have at it. Against Kobe, why not try Ariza?

- Larry is still learning about his guys. Give him 20 games with all healthy bodies.

Hey, it’s all about who gets the most minute anyway, right? You know AD and Rose are gonna somehow be in the mix for defensive purposes. And you know that those 2 are setting the pace in practice and in the locker room. Larry has got to stick with them a little.

It’s funny, but I don’t remember reading about the players complaining too much about the rotating lineups. Curry has been hurt, so that has facilitated the mixes.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Knicksfan
Posts: 33542
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 7/5/2004
Member: #691
USA
12/3/2005  12:06 AM
I agree with Frye but not with Crawford. I think Larry is doing the right thing with Crawford bringing him as the game changer from the bench. Notice how Crawford is thrieving in that role. I think he has matured in that area this season. Now, Frye not in the starting lineup was Larry in panic because of the veteran Pistons. I understand it, but Larry has to trust the guys that have really earned it, and Frye is one of the few. I don't agree that he isn't ready for 35 minutes and a starting job because its a different rookie we are talking about here. He is very mature, has been our leader many times and is really that talented. Nate and Lee I agree, but Frye has been as a veteran this season and he makes our team so much better. And he is a great offensive option, something we definitely lacked at the start of that 3rd quarter.

Frye should start, no other way to see it. Without Curry, we need consistent scoring from a big, and he is our best in that department. But things will settle soon, and the Knicks will turn their season around before the ASB...
Knicks_Fan
martin
Posts: 79069
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
12/3/2005  12:13 AM
Posted by Knicksfan:

I agree with Frye but not with Crawford. I think Larry is doing the right thing with Crawford bringing him as the game changer from the bench. Notice how Crawford is thrieving in that role. I think he has matured in that area this season. Now, Frye not in the starting lineup was Larry in panic because of the veteran Pistons. I understand it, but Larry has to trust the guys that have really earned it, and Frye is one of the few. I don't agree that he isn't ready for 35 minutes and a starting job because its a different rookie we are talking about here. He is very mature, has been our leader many times and is really that talented. Nate and Lee I agree, but Frye has been as a veteran this season and he makes our team so much better. And he is a great offensive option, something we definitely lacked at the start of that 3rd quarter.

Frye should start, no other way to see it. Without Curry, we need consistent scoring from a big, and he is our best in that department. But things will settle soon, and the Knicks will turn their season around before the ASB...

the one big thing against what you are asking for.... Frye is thriving off the bench, why change that? (admittedly, he did well in his 3 starts too)
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
12/3/2005  12:14 AM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Knicksfan:

I agree with Frye but not with Crawford. I think Larry is doing the right thing with Crawford bringing him as the game changer from the bench. Notice how Crawford is thrieving in that role. I think he has matured in that area this season. Now, Frye not in the starting lineup was Larry in panic because of the veteran Pistons. I understand it, but Larry has to trust the guys that have really earned it, and Frye is one of the few. I don't agree that he isn't ready for 35 minutes and a starting job because its a different rookie we are talking about here. He is very mature, has been our leader many times and is really that talented. Nate and Lee I agree, but Frye has been as a veteran this season and he makes our team so much better. And he is a great offensive option, something we definitely lacked at the start of that 3rd quarter.

Frye should start, no other way to see it. Without Curry, we need consistent scoring from a big, and he is our best in that department. But things will settle soon, and the Knicks will turn their season around before the ASB...

the one big thing against what you are asking for.... Frye is thriving off the bench, why change that? (admittedly, he did well in his 3 starts too)

martin - frye is a stud. there's no way around it. he plays like a vet. he needs to start.
martin
Posts: 79069
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
12/3/2005  12:25 AM
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Knicksfan:

I agree with Frye but not with Crawford. I think Larry is doing the right thing with Crawford bringing him as the game changer from the bench. Notice how Crawford is thrieving in that role. I think he has matured in that area this season. Now, Frye not in the starting lineup was Larry in panic because of the veteran Pistons. I understand it, but Larry has to trust the guys that have really earned it, and Frye is one of the few. I don't agree that he isn't ready for 35 minutes and a starting job because its a different rookie we are talking about here. He is very mature, has been our leader many times and is really that talented. Nate and Lee I agree, but Frye has been as a veteran this season and he makes our team so much better. And he is a great offensive option, something we definitely lacked at the start of that 3rd quarter.

Frye should start, no other way to see it. Without Curry, we need consistent scoring from a big, and he is our best in that department. But things will settle soon, and the Knicks will turn their season around before the ASB...

the one big thing against what you are asking for.... Frye is thriving off the bench, why change that? (admittedly, he did well in his 3 starts too)

martin - frye is a stud. there's no way around it. he plays like a vet. he needs to start.


seriously, if he is getting the same minutes as he does if he comes off the bench, what's the difference? Also, I would say that Frye has not had to play against some real stud PFs yet. I just don't want him to start and pick up 2 quick ones and consequently only get 16-20 minutes a game. I want him to play 30+ minutes.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Nalod
Posts: 71911
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
12/3/2005  12:28 AM
Martin, IM with you. He is getting the minutes and still learing. Larry keeps his vets in the game knowing frye is waiting and ready with young legs.

Starting does not mean playing the whole game. And he is finishing.

It will happen over time, this is a process!

I agree with larry keeping his vets happy and involved in many ways.
martin
Posts: 79069
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
12/3/2005  12:30 AM
Posted by Nalod:

Starting does not mean playing the whole game. And he is finishing.

Actually this is the KEY.

I don't want Frye starting, I want him finishing games. And playing 30 minutes.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
12/3/2005  1:06 AM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Nalod:

Starting does not mean playing the whole game. And he is finishing.

Actually this is the KEY.

I don't want Frye starting, I want him finishing games. And playing 30 minutes.

you guys are correct but i also think that starting off the 1st and 3rd quarters are EQUALLY as important. getting into holes expend alot of energy trying to get back out of them. and on the road, more often than not, it's unsuccessful. frye off the bench doesn't make sense to me as he's playing like a veteran. he's kept out of foul trouble for the most part and he's our best PF. so he should start. you want to shield them, then fine but lb HAS to yank the starters quicker, especially in the 3rd quarter if things aren't going their way.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
12/3/2005  1:19 AM
AD played very few minutes in the 2nd half.

It was mainly Frye & Butler. And that had alot to do with why the pick and roll was an unstoppable play against us. They learned towards the end, but that play is essentially what allowed Detroit SO many easy buckets. Guards going around bigs and the bigs not sagging back to close the back door. Those guys did that to us like aclinic and the bigs never adjusted until too late.

I
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
12/3/2005  1:22 AM
Posted by djsunyc:

there are two people that deserve to start every single game and that's craw and frye.

Curry yes, Craw, I'm not sold yet, Q came out looking good. But I agree Craw looked better AND played better D on Rip, when he didn't leave him to double.

Craw's doing fine now, but perhaps it makes more sense to have him start, but its not clear cut to me.
bobs3304
Posts: 24827
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 7/5/2005
Member: #948
12/3/2005  1:24 AM
Couldnt agree more.

Q and Malik are the 2 guys really playing sloppy for us.

Q should get traded and Malik should only be brought in for short stretches.
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.
PhilinLA
Posts: 24941
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/12/2004
Member: #696
12/3/2005  1:24 AM
Frye has to start. We're a much better team when he does, and it will speed his development.
http://amonthhoffundays.blogspot.com/ We got a ringer.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
12/3/2005  1:35 AM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by djsunyc:

there are two people that deserve to start every single game and that's craw and frye.

Curry yes, Craw, I'm not sold yet, Q came out looking good. But I agree Craw looked better AND played better D on Rip, when he didn't leave him to double.

Craw's doing fine now, but perhaps it makes more sense to have him start, but its not clear cut to me.

craw the past two games has almost been like a day/night transformation. you saw how he has been playing with a head on his shoulders. he had some confidence issues as he was in the starting lineup, then the bench, etc. lb has admitted that he's been the hardest on craw. and craw was feeling it. but now, after the chicago game and tonight in detroit, he has appeared VERY confident, VERY aggressive and looks like he's beginning to take control of the team. the leadership has been up for grabs all season, and the last two games, craw has been emerging as a candidate to take it. hopefully this trend will continue.


[Edited by - djsunyc on 12-03-2005 01:37 AM]
technomaster
Posts: 23353
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/30/2003
Member: #426
USA
12/3/2005  3:14 AM
Posted by martin:



seriously, if he is getting the same minutes as he does if he comes off the bench, what's the difference? Also, I would say that Frye has not had to play against some real stud PFs yet. I just don't want him to start and pick up 2 quick ones and consequently only get 16-20 minutes a game. I want him to play 30+ minutes.

Until I played in the NY Urban basketball league, I didn't think it made a difference whether you started or not, as long as you got minutes. I found that when I started, I tended to get a nice smooth rhythm on the floor and generally played my best ball as a starter.

When I came off the bench, I tended to be this unskilled energy player who hustled, picked up tons of fouls, and overall, drew the ire of the refs. It takes a very mentally tough and confident player to understand their role off the bench.

Frye seems to flourish in either case. He's clearly been our best offensive big man, as well as our purest outside shooter. Don't worry too much about foul trouble--- judging by his lower shot blocking stats lately, it looks like he's not challenging everything anymore... in addition, the Knicks have tons of veteran big men out there to guard the tougher assignments and let Frye shine on offense.

I personally believe the Knicks are trying to showcase Rose/Davis/Taylor in order to move them. I don't see why a team like the Hawks wouldn't be tempted with the prospect of adding two big men (James/Butler or Butler/Rose, Butler/Taylor or whatever) in exchange for Al Harrington (or Childress/Smith/Williams)... considering they only have 1 legit big man (Pachulia).


[Edited by - technomaster on 12-03-2005 03:16 AM]
“That was two, two from the heart.” - John Starks
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
12/3/2005  3:36 AM
Ros and AD are way too inoffensive to ever be on the court together.

Game in game out, the starting five should be: Curry, Channing, Steph, Craw, ?
« Reply To Topic
starting lineups do matter...
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