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

The reason only for playing Jefferies is perimeter defense...aka bigger is better...
Author Thread
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
1/13/2007  8:40 PM
The Knicks best stretches this season have come when playing big.

One of the biggest deficits on the team is perimeter defense, which is magnified when we go small (aka Jamal, Marbury and QRich).

Jefferies, a defensive player, was the starting shooting guard for the Washington Wizards last year, a playoffs team, and he's also demonstrated that ability here, as when he shut down Rip Hamilton against Detroit in 3OT - he also helped on Tayshun Prince in regulation (Prince was 4-16 with 13pts, vs 11-17 for 31pts in Detroit's win earlier this season.)

AND, Isiah has consistently said that David Lee comes off the bench to be part of a higher energy unit. Right now the point guard for that unit is Nate Robinson who is a point guard in height only and a shooting guard in all other ways.

So, logically, Jared Jefferies should start at guard for our horrendous perimeter defense squad. Jamal Crawford should be removed from the starting lineup and run the point from the bench. I don't want to cut too many of Jamal's minutes, but I want to see this team go bigger more often. Our best stretch of the season came when David Lee was the starting small forward. However, if QRich is going to be healthy, he pretty has to be our starting small forward. I'm not sure he's fast enough to be our starting SG, but ideally I'd like to start Lee at SF and QRich at SG.

However, as long as DLee gets 30 minutes a night, I think the starting lineup should be:

PG - Marbury
SG - Jefferies
SF - QRich
PF - Frye
C - Curry

There's plenty of shooting in that lineup between Q, Frye and Marbury. Jamal and DLee and Balkman should be our primary options off the bench. I do not think we can be a .500 basketball team with Jamal, Marbury and QRich being on the floor together for the majority of the game. Last night they all played about 40 minutes. I think our defense is going to look bad any time that happens.

¿ △ ?
AUTOADVERT
izybx
Posts: 22366
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 10/16/2006
Member: #1178
USA
1/13/2007  10:44 PM
I would do that lineup, Craw needs to come off the bench, he is not a starter in this league. Maybe start balkman if front of JJ to at least pretend to have a shooting guard?
Beat the Evil Empire. BEAT MIAMI
izybx
Posts: 22366
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 10/16/2006
Member: #1178
USA
1/13/2007  10:45 PM
And actually, what you are saying is start Q at shooting guard over Craw. I think we def do that, especially because then we can have a solid three guard rotation because Craw can play both guard positions. JJ can still guard the opposing 2, as starting positions dont dictate who you have to defend (obv).
Beat the Evil Empire. BEAT MIAMI
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
1/13/2007  10:52 PM
heh well i like your idea better than thomas' stupid starting lineup. but I dont see why jeffries should start. he does little more than nothing on the court.
izybx
Posts: 22366
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 10/16/2006
Member: #1178
USA
1/13/2007  10:56 PM
Posted by SlimPack:

heh well i like your idea better than thomas' stupid starting lineup. but I dont see why jeffries should start. he does little more than nothing on the court.

I agree, if someone is going to start then it should be Balkman, who brings similar qualities to the table as JJ but can actually do it in a game.
Beat the Evil Empire. BEAT MIAMI
Erniecat
Posts: 20577
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2005
Member: #851
1/14/2007  1:58 AM
Very interesting suggestion, though I am part of the group that so far has seen nothing from Jeffries to warrant a starting job. I just don't understand why it's so difficult to just start Lee, Frye and Curry up front, and Q and Marbury in the backcourt. At the very least, we should try that lineup to see how it works. Then you bring Jeffries, Crawford and Balkman off the bench, adding N8 and a big man as needed.

I do see Isiah's point about how bringing Lee off the bench allows him to use Lee to sub for pretty much anyone on the front line, but I just don't think a 16-22 team can afford not to start its best players.
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
1/14/2007  2:53 AM
It beats the current lineup, so I'm fine with it.

btw, crzymdups, maybe you should change your sig. ;)
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
1/14/2007  4:22 AM
Posted by Rich:

It beats the current lineup, so I'm fine with it.

btw, crzymdups, maybe you should change your sig. ;)

I'm not sure I totally believe this idea yet, but the basic premise remains the same - this team is better when it goes big.
¿ △ ?
The reason only for playing Jefferies is perimeter defense...aka bigger is better...

©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