Posted by Bonn1997:

I still don't understand the Marbury and Nash comparison driving this thread. Nash is the MVP and the best PG in the league right now; he's a better PG than Marbury. It's not like we gave up Nash to get Marbury. Why is Nash at all relevant to the Knicks?

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Slim, let's take salary out of the picture once and for all. It isn't relevant at all, but just is used as rhetoric. 2nd what did we give up for Marbury? Lampe? expiring contracts? a broken Dice? Not exactly a high price. We weren't gonna get a KG or Duncan or Kobe for expiring contracts and a couple of draft picks. I still think it was a great trade.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

There's no reason to hate the Suns. They're doing much better than I expected and Nash is a better *fit* for that team than Marbury was. Marbury fits well on half-court teams, not on teams that run as much as the Suns do.

And the fact that they're doing this without Amare? Weren't you one of the people who suggested that Nash would be exposed without Amare? You know, the way you always used Amare's absense for a couple of weeks as an excuse for Marbury.

I don't know; maybe you can check all your bookmarked threads. LIKE I SAID, they're doing much better than I expected.

Wow, Fish must have really stung you with that one if you have to steal his material.

Typical response though. I knew you'd have no interest in actually answering it.

Yeah, it stung so bad I was up all night crying! I thought once in a blue moon I'd take a lesson from Fish on how to change the topic when the topic seems pointless to me. I learned from the best!

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by tkf:

This is a useless thread, who gives a damn about nash and the suns, they are never winning a championship with that team, so in the long run, they are in the same boat and no better...

Yeah and if the Suns had the 3rd worst record at this point instead of the 3rd best, how many posts would there be exclaiming that Marbury should be vindicated since Nash couldn't succeed without Amare the way people use that as an excuse for Marbury's Suns when Amare went down for a few weeks? If you want some idea we could always pull up the threads from October when Amare went down.

Posted by djsunyc:

i don't think we can "blame" steph for the loss last night at all. i think he did everything lb asked him to do last night. he was pretty much dumping it into the post and he was taking jumpers early b/c he was hitting them. he didn't really just put his head down and drowned out the team to get his. and he made a concerted effort to get it into the post almost to a fault.

but that doesn't mean steph is the long-term answer for us at the point (which i don't think he is). but i don't think criticizing steph in THIS GAME is warranted.

13 of 19 on the road and we're 6-13. kind of makes sense, no?

we kind of have to start winning sooner than later b/c there is alot riding on it so hopefully this homestand helps.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

There's no reason to hate the Suns. They're doing much better than I expected and Nash is a better *fit* for that team than Marbury was. Marbury fits well on half-court teams, not on teams that run as much as the Suns do.

And the fact that they're doing this without Amare? Weren't you one of the people who suggested that Nash would be exposed without Amare? You know, the way you always used Amare's absense for a couple of weeks as an excuse for Marbury.

I don't know; maybe you can check all your bookmarked threads. LIKE I SAID, they're doing much better than I expected.

Wow, Fish must have really stung you with that one if you have to steal his material.

Typical response though. I knew you'd have no interest in actually answering it.

Yeah, it stung so bad I was up all night crying! I thought once in a blue moon I'd take a lesson from Fish on how to change the topic when the topic seems pointless to me. I learned from the best!

I don't know about up all night crying but it obviously hit home. Must have been an awful lot of truth to it.

Of course it's pointless to you, it's calling you out on things you've said in the past so according to you it's in your best interest to change the topic now.

You change the topic every once in a blue moon the way you only post on this board every once in a blue moon.

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by McK1:

problem is we don't have San Antonio's big men nor do we have San Antonio's guards or San Antonio's bench.

I know that. my point was that the knicks should strive to have their source of points on offense come from a mixture of low post play, and guard play similar to how san antonio does, not that we be exactly like them talent-wise. you dont have to be tim duncan to pass out of a double team instead of forcing the issue and turning it over, and ysimilarly ou dont have to be tony parker to cut to the basket after dumping the ball in the post, instead of standing around, and look to both score, and get the ball to your big man on offense.

in theory you do because the IQ and instinct has to be there to recognize when and where the double is coming from as a big man, where the seam is to cut and create a passing angle as a guard, and when to deliver the pass as a big man.

Posted by BlueSeats:

i think I can relate to where islesfan is coming from. It's not really about Nash or Marbury, it's about message board dynamics, and how certain homeristic fans feel no need to be analytical or realistic in their assessments; just find a way to justify the notion that everything we do is right, and will work out, and piss on every other team who haven't won a championship, and piss on any poster who voices reservations, concerns or discontent.

If we go on a winning spree everyone knows we'll see all sorts of threads calling out the "haters". Where is so and so now that we're winning; lets hear them blame this or that, or credit this or that; they're probably watching the Nets; Marbury proving everybody wrong like i said he would; yadda, yadda, yadda.

But if a hater similarly points out where the homers erred in their enthusiasm for our guys, or pessimism of others, he's still a bad guy and still "wrong".

Now I'm not saying anything has definitively been proven one way or the other, but I think it's fair to assume if our records were switched with the Suns, we'd be hearing a lot from Marbury supporters about who's a great PG and who isn't.

In this world greater credibility is granted to homers who are wrong, than skeptics who are right.