a distinguished guest in section 406 as the world renowned marv joined djsunyc for today's game. he thought it was bit overboard as i went black tie for the occasion but nonetheless, here are some quick hits from the game...

- your celebrities of choice...fat joe. that's it. fat joe. how the mighty have fallen.

- it was kids day today at the garden, and as marv pointed out, probably the reason why nate started...b/c, you know, he's small...like a kid.

- can we revisit the "starting lineups do matter..." post? http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=12936 --- again, nothing new here as our starting lineup had us in an early hole again. seems to be the nyknick way, doesn't it? the only time we played well in this game was the 2nd half of the FIRST quarter...and that's it.

- crowd was pretty dead throughout until the end. as marv and i watched, we kept commenting on how the team DOES NOT move on the offensive end. no pick and rolls. no movement on the baseline. nothing. boston did a good job adjusting to us as everytime we tried to run the pick and pop with frye, they didn't leave him and he had a tough time getting shots early. we did not ADJUST to that. that's all on lb as we didn't really run any plays for frye throughout the game. there was an EXTENDED period where scalaweenie was guarding frye and we were pleading for lb to get the ball into the post for him. also, this was a game where frye's weakness was pretty evident...he's weak on the boards. offensively, despite putting up 25 points is STILL being underutilized. but on the boards, he's pretty weak as he couldn't get position by boston's bigger players. and it's not like they're world beaters either in perkins, blount, and lafrentz.

- jerome james is hilarious. as soon as he checks in, we get IMMEDIATE impact as he draws a foul within FIVE seconds on the court. amazing. oh, and jerome james is the black hole. all those donuts are effecting his play as all the glaze and sugar on his fingers make them so sticky that when he gets the ball in the post, he doesn't pass it off. disgusting. i understand lb has set plays where the 5 man gets the ball in the post. but do we have to run those plays REGARDLESS of the personnel on the floor? i mean do we have to go to AD or the big game in the post JUST BECAUSE they're the "5" on the play?

- before the game, a concern of mine was when eddy returns, we would dump it down to him and just sit and watch as he tries to operate...and that's exactly what happened. everyone who is disappointed about eddy curry shouldn't be surprised. this is what we traded for...a big guy with some skill that has historically been one with motivation issues and nagging injuries. and that's what we're seeing. it's pretty clear, TO ME, that he needs to serve a nazr role for us this year. let steph and craw set him up for easy baskets and dunks. dumping down to him KILLS our entire flow offensively. granted, today, we didn't have a flow for the ENTIRE game but you get my point. don't be mad at eddy tho. he's still a baby who hasn't played contact bball in months and is trying to come back from a calf injury. also, this is the first time he's away from chicago in his entire life. there will be an adjustment period and i think it will take all year so let's be patient with him. i'll put it to you this way, if it takes him 2 years to get "THERE", then we still can get 10 more years out of him.

- amazing how the past two games, we have $90 mil on the bench and the hundred thousand player is the one that's our center out there. jackie butler is SEVERELY outplaying them. he's not only blocking some shots, but he's getting TUFF rebounds down low and he's really the only guy we have that plays like a big man. marv pointed out two things about him that are right on: 1. he's the only big we have the sets a pick and then ROLLS to the basket. we don't let eddy set picks and when frye does it, he waits for pass back for the jumper. 2. he's our only big that gets a rebound, keeps the ball above his head and doesn't try to make a move down low by putting it on the floor or some up and under nonsense - he goes straight back up like a big man is supposed to. missed free throws? who cares. this guy is our FOURTH QUARTER center and that's a big statement. making fun of james is always a good time...but to see a guy like jackie butler getting the real minutes and outproducing that big piece of crap just makes you shake your head.

- which leads to marbury. TRADE HIM NOW!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
but seriously, i'm not sure what the hell to think here. alot of people say that he's the main reason our offense looks like crap and today he was just going for his. i can't see how lb would allow that. if steph was really being overly shelfish, then i'm sure lb would've pulled him over...which he didn't. so i'm thinking that lb was OK with it. he did keep us in the game offensively but this is where the whole "pg" issue comes in. should he be trying to keep us in it offensively or should he be trying to get everyone involved? today's game looked like we were just going through the motions offensively. we weren't really moving around nor were we able to run any plays without boston disrupting us. we kept trying to make these precision passes when the passes weren't there. it was pretty bad from beginning to end. and the guy that takes the blame for that is the pg. at one point, i was like "come on lb, give steph some help" as he was out there with 4 DUDS and trying to run the team. marbury has been playing well as late, very steady. as you can see, i'm all over the place with this one. he didn't really get much help today, but i think the blame (what we love to do as fans, find blame) goes to him AND lb. there were a few times there were steph would just put his head down and go for his...where he wasn't even thinking about passing. in the flow of the offense, the first pass didn't come until 12 seconds or less on the clock many times which is AWFUL. and the other guys on the court just weren't touching the ball enough. i think steph should take some heat on that. and lb didn't make proper adjustments, imho. another big statistical day for steph...and another loss. just a bad game.

i know i'm being hard on steph but he is the franchise player and it sucks that our most prolific scorer ALSO has to be the one to get everyone else involved...i just don't know if that can work.

- not having crawford there definitely hurt but we still had a chance to win it. we played like TOTAL CRAP the entire game yet were still in it at the end. so that's a silver lining. Q was VERY impressive on the boards but still looks SO out of place for us offensively. man, ever watch him run, he waddles around like a duck.

- nate was outmatched here with bigger and stronger guards in this one. he really shouldn't have been put in that situation to dribble up the ball and take the final shot. EVERYONE knows he's a jock and we had time to set up a play as lb could've diagramed one up during the free throws. but it went to nate, who didn't pass it and tried to win it. tough spot to put a rookie in. i'm not that upset with nate as i am with lb.

- and at the end of the day, it was pretty simple...START your best players lb. marbs, craw, rose/ariza, frye, curry and then take it from there. how many holes do we have to dig ourselves out of? we were in a hole since halftime and couldn't overcome it, especially with davis and pierce playing so good down the stretch. boston is in our heads as we're now 0-2 vs. them. tough loss, especially with a 3 game west coast trip coming up.

marv, care to add anything else?

[Edited by - djsunyc on 12-04-2005 6:59 PM]

Yeah, there wasn't alot of motion in the offense the whole game, unlike against Detroit in the first half our offense moved beautifully, so I am not sure what changed, Boston is not a better defending team than Detroit, so what gives?.
Marbury took over the offense because no one else could hit a shot or didn't want to take one, so I don't blame him doing so, he just wanted to win. The turnovers were a big part of the problem it takes away from the flow of the offense and gives them an easy basket, it as simple as that, again the Detroit was great we didn't turn it over that much.
Free throws, well there lies a huge problem especially in the fourth quarter, they missed 7 or 8, and it's not like we were getting to the line like in Detroit, we just weren't making them it's so frustrating along with more crucial turnovers and lapses on defense makes it much harder to come back to to win.
This team can't keep taking on moral victories, it needs to win to show progress, that's as simple as that, it is no longer acceptable to play just to show, you have to play to WIN!.
Other wise you have nothing to show but a pile of HORSESHIT!,

I gotta agree with Knight on this, at least in the broad sense. there were a lot of fans expecting us to be around 10-6 by now and heading for a 50 win season because, miraculously, within a training camp, LB we be extracating only the best out of each and every one of our players.

Larry can teach, but it takes time, He also gives up on players, and trades them. It's not Larry's fault this roster is deeply flawed. Some of you need to decide if you want to give the man time to break down bad habits and teach new ones, or churn the roster to get what he wants. But he's a coach, not a miracle worker.

And I do think far too much has been made of our need for a backup PG. I think 'backup PG' is a euphemism for an eventual 'starting PG'. Playmaking is not Steph's strong suit (as D'Antoni agrees), so why inhibit what is his strong suit when it really doesn't serve the club from either angle.

yes, I'm a Steph 'hater', for those of you in love with shallow labels. I've always felt if he had to fairly compete for the PG spot against quality playmakers he'd lose the position. I still think that today. I also think if he then had to compete for the two spot against quality two's he'd fall short there too.

This is part of the reason Larry is constantly shuffling the deck to see where people fit. We have a lot of tweeners and very few people who really own their position.

Teach 'em, or trade 'em? That is the question. Some of that depends on your timeframe, some depends on your emotional attachment, some depends on what else they bring to the equation (like leadership and infectious energy), and some of it depends on who else is available.

As always, an NBA player is good, but compared to what?

get Telfair

Posted by BlueSeats:

yes, I'm a Steph 'hater', for those of you in love with shallow labels. I've always felt if he had to fairly compete for the PG spot against quality playmakers he'd lose the position. I still think that today. I also think if he then had to compete for the two spot against quality two's he'd fall short there too.

[sarcasm]This must be why he was buried on the bench behind all the great playmakers on the olympic team.[/sarcasm]

Posted by eViL:

Posted by BlueSeats:

yes, I'm a Steph 'hater', for those of you in love with shallow labels. I've always felt if he had to fairly compete for the PG spot against quality playmakers he'd lose the position. I still think that today. I also think if he then had to compete for the two spot against quality two's he'd fall short there too.

[sarcasm]This must be why he was buried on the bench behind all the great playmakers on the olympic team.[/sarcasm]

First off, Marbury was invited onto the team as a favor to isiah. Second, brown reportedly lobbied to then have him removed. Third, when asked if he was surprised Brown took the job in NY Melo laughed and said god yes, after all Larry and Steph went through over there. Fourth,. who exactly were the great playmakers on the Olympics team? Fifth, if you want to tell me Iverson and Wade, not only do i disagree they are great playmakers, but I also think they are even better suited to playing SG than Steph.

So, ultimately Steph was out manned for the two spot by better players; played point by default and as a favor to isiah and was almost removed in spite of it; and did a pretty poor job of running a team full of world class athletes cause Steph works best in simple systems where the lane is left open for him with defenders drawn out by jumpshooters who he can also dish out to.

Steph gives guys the ball where he passes best to rather than where they like it best. best offense for Steph is where he moves and everyone else stands stationary. It's effective for spot up jumpshooters, as witnessed when we had Houston, Doleac, van Horn, and KT. But not every player works best in a stand-around-and-wait-then-pop offense.

wait a minute, the knicks lost a game? then it must have been all stephs fault trade him IMMEDIATLEY, but in all seriousness I blame LB and his retarded rotations alot more for todays loss than I do marbury who I beleive was simply doing what he though was needed to win. although I must say that I little while ago speculated that if marbury were to ever be traded, then before he is traded he would be alowed to score as much as he wants in the 2 or 3 games before the transaction because If larry was planning on winning with steph then he'd probably try to get him to play the PG role instead of letting go buck wild, and also in order to prove to the seller how good of a scorer he can be, now Im not saying that thats whats happening but thats just something that I figured a couple of months ago, when peter viscey was saying the LB was trying to get marbs traded.

Posted by eViL:

So he got more minutes than everyone but Iverson because of a favor? Right.

LB and Stephon had so many problems that LB wanted to have him kicked off the team, but when that didn't happen he said "oh well, let me play him more than all my other guards not named AI."? Right.

Then the glutton for punishment LB decided to coach Marbury again with the Knicks? Right.

Can you truely argue all of this with a straight face?

The team didn't have an alternative PG and didn't do particularly well with the one they had. Everyone knows by now how much they struggled and most understand the struggle they are in now.

I'm a bit confused as to what part of all this you don't get?

Posted by BlueSeats:

The team didn't have an alternative PG and didn't do particularly well with the one they had. Everyone knows by now how much they struggled and most understand the struggle they are in now.

I'm a bit confused as to what part of all this you don't get?

I get what you're saying. It just doesn't convince me at all. You can point to whatever you want, the fact is: 1) he played Steph 26mpg in the Olympics (second only to AI's 27mpg), 2) he agreed to coach him with the Knicks. You're trying to argue by using speculative quotes from Carmelo Anthony and totally unsupported rumors that Marbs was taken on as a favor. Meanwhile, if you look at what actually went down - it tells a different story.

I'm not one of those people that thinks this team is without fault. None of our players are perfect. I hold no allegiance to any one player. Our roster could certainly use some tweaks. But ultimately, basketball is a team game - you win as a team, you lose as a team. The anti-Marbury sentiment is for people who love doggin' the superstar. Ewing was dogged all the time.

All the people on this board that are doggin' the team like having it both ways. If we win, it's despite Marbury. If we lose, it's because of him. All the while, I've seen the guy change his game this season. He's shooting three less shots per game. He's playing harder defense. I've seen him dive for balls. He's trying to be a floor general. He's rebounding. Marbury definitely strikes me as a dude who has come to a point in his career where he will do whatever it takes to win. There's a lot of people who disagree - so be it.

As long as the Knicks improve and eventually win, I'm happy.

I've just come to gruips that some posters here enjoy rooting against players on the team that they claim to like.

There is no occurance that cannot be spun in a way that makes all bad things Steph's fault.

When he passes he shoudl have shot, and when he shoots he should have passed.

Steph played 46 minutes, so I think it is safe to assume he was doing everything that LB wanted orr he woulda been yanked.

Our offense moving like it did, seems like it can only be attributed to LB. Did Steph make players not move or not hit shots? He played him too many minutes and at the end of the game he ran out of gas.

Frye and Butler are the only others who came to play.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Now here, with sufficient time, Brown might be able to cause a transformation in Steph; but clearly the Olympics did not allow sufficient time for that.

That's all you had to say. Now you're making sense.

The rest of it is soap-opera BS. If I want stories intermingled with athletics, I'll watch wrestling. If you want to belive what you read in print - suit yourself. As much as Brown lobbied to have Marbury cut, he played the guy plenty of minutes. Who would Brown had played if Marbury was cut? And why didn't he play that person ahead of Steph anyway?

As far as what I see on the court - Steph is changing before our very eyes. I'm not using each game as a barometer. I'm judging what I saw pre-LB and what I see now. There's a difference. You can't say Steph hasn't changed. And by adjusting his game, Steph is demonstrating that he's willing to try; he's demonstrating that he's coachable. Seeing a change in Steph is enough for me to be optimistic. Would a 10-Year vet that has severe clashes with his coach try so hard to adjust his game?