First of all it was interesting to see in the Philly gme thread how some were ringing the death knull after what seemed like the team struggling by saying that "roster moves" were being made during the first half of a pre-season game that wasn't even being televised.

Guys...it's PRE-SEASON, and some sound like they're ready to have a heart attack already. I know the past few years have been awful, and plenty of reason to be pessimistic, but I'd like to see what this team is capable of under Isiah as coach, and thus far, it is already looking like there are changes and encouraging signs.

After watching the first game and reading the past few NY Times article, including today's, there is the beginnings of some evidence to suggest that Isiah's coaching is having a positive effect on this team. In fact it appears that his strategies are directly addressing the very issues and criticisms many outside observers have consistently noted as concerns.

1) Build up team confidence and unity, while improving technical weaknesses.

A NY Times article from last week mentioned one day in training camp where they couldn't leave practice until the team hit 10 free throws in a row. They came close a few times, and were frustrated, as well as berated by Isiah saying "How do you expect to win in the N.B.A. if you can't make free throws?" Eventually they were able to and there was a small celebration displayed by some players.

2) De-Emphasize Ball Dominance By Guards

Today's NY Times discusses how Zeke wants to de-emphasize ball dominance from the guards, which is in direct relation to the criticism of Marbury, Francis and Craw especially. He said why not have 5 guys with 3 assists instead of one guy with 15, and that in "Old School" ball this was the norm. Of course, that's a bit of an oversimplification, but the point is taken. So far, players are buying in, and if it results in wins, I think one can expect to see it be accepted over the long haul, as well as gradually nullify potential weaknesses of our best players.

This also means more ball movement via quick cuts and crisp passes, as Isiah outlined as well and the team has displayed in the first game at least.

3) Increased Hustle.

Guys like Balkman and Jeffries have already added hustle play, and when you throw in Lee and an improved Q and Nate you have 5 guys who are known for putting in the extra effort. You saw it in the game against the Nets when Lee and Balkman were out there with Nate and there was a lot of good play on defense. This could prove to be quite beneficial.

4) Curry

If Eddy can play like he did yesterday then we are going to be in good shape. Of course, how consistent will that play be, and how will he do against tougher competition down low are BIG question marks, but we can see that if he avoids foul trouble he can be a big pain for the opposing team. His numbers are VERY Shaq-esque, but I have just as much concern that he won't be consistent as we would like so it remains to be seen.

Interestingly, thus far it has been a variety players in each game who have galvanized the team. In game 1 Frye looked REALLY GOOD to me. I LOVED some of the post moves I saw, and was quite impressed with the development. Q also impressed with his shooting and overall play in game 1 as well as Balkman, Jeffries & Lee.

Yesterday it was vintage Jamal with a strong overall game and another game winning shot (I didn't know that HE LED THE NBA IN GAME WINNING SHOTS LAST YEAR WITH 6, BTW), Curry's dominating stat line, and strong games (apparently) from Nate and Lee again.

Conclusion.

This all being said it is VERY early to make any strong judgements, because if the team starts loosing early on, we could see problems that haunted the team last year quickly rise to the surface, causing the team to implode. However, I do think that any presumption that we will be as bad as last year is starting to look a bit less likely, as long as the team remains focused on buying into what Isiah is selling. If not it could be 2005-06 part deux.

[Edited by - PresIke on 10-15-2006 3:38 PM]

Knicks will play well and get more wins this year, it may be rough in the first 15 to 20 games. The Knicks having the ball in everybody's hands will be a good thing. I expect Curry to average 15 to 17 pts and 6 boards a game, he'll have a breakout game from time to time but probably won't be consistent. Block shots will have to come from Jeffries, Frye, Balkman and maybe Lee. The guys will have more fun, team chemistry will grow and the Knicks will be an improved team.

right now knicks on a roll and i hope fans can appreciate the win situation. beyond that, its one day at a time.

Posted by Travla:

Knicks will play well and get more wins this year, it may be rough in the first 15 to 20 games. The Knicks having the ball in everybody's hands will be a good thing. I expect Curry to average 15 to 17 pts and 6 boards a game, he'll have a breakout game from time to time but probably won't be consistent. Block shots will have to come from Jeffries, Frye, Balkman and maybe Lee. The guys will have more fun, team chemistry will grow and the Knicks will be an improved team.

Curry will get more than 6 rbs unless he's only playing 24 mpg.

exactly...I'm banking on doubling the win total.

leaving no doubt about who was at fault.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by SugarRayRichardson:

I'm looking for 43 wins this season. 43-39

You know, 43 wins would have gotten us 5th seed in the east last yr.

we were at full strength?

In reality when you are estimating costs you need to factor in the luxury tax, especially when the gm makes trades to get picks.

Is it not fair to say that since Jalen is not going to be in the rotation, Zeke effectively got a second round player, whom we like for over 20 million dollars. It is the truth.....

Isiah invested a lot of money in Richardson, and Rose is in that discussion, but the organization said they would be showing fiscal restraint by not give Butler a two year deal at about 4 million and then signed JJ.

So you factor in what the deal is costing you against the luxury tax. If you were running a business where money is important would you sign someone that give you minimal production and a little bit of defense if it meant his contract was going to cost you double. Probably not......

And how were we not at full strength, we didn't have Big Snacks a huge part of our rotation