Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Ooh, I've been seriously wondering if the conventional wisdom isn't wrong on the reason for abandoning the running/uptempo game.

Conventional wisdom states: "Isiah abandoned the "quick" offense when Curry established that he can be a reliable low post threat."

Sounds reasonable enough that hordes have bought into it, but those who thought this would be a great offense for us did so fully expecting that from Curry, and Isiah maintained that offense for Indy with JO also well established in the low post.

I suspect that Isiah abandoned the quick when it became clear Marbury was too sluggish to conduct that style of play, Crawford returned to his most chuckful ways, Q-lost his shot, and we led the league in TOs.

In short, I contend we abandoned the uptempo game not because of our bigs, but because of our backcourt's inability to think and react fast without throwing the ball away.

I think Eddy and Frye are both conducive to a looser, quicker style of play.

[Edited by - blueseats on 02-24-2007 1:40 PM]

I think you may be right on many accounts, but I think the difference is that Thomas still wants the team to attack quickly when they have the chance and they have had more success with that style as the season progresses. It's not so much that it is abandoned but that he simultaneously wanted to establish Curry in the low post, and he has had more success with that strategy. But I think Marbury is getting better at ball movement, as has Crawford. Lee is perfect for it, he lives for it. Frye should excel in it too, he is the piece that really needs to be brought into the mix at this point. His effectiveness changes the team dynamic tremendously.

Most successful teams can dominate 2 ways on offense. The Bulls posted Jordan like a center but they were the best finishers in the game and had solid outside as well. Same with the Lakers, dominant in the post with the best open-court finisher in the game.

The Knicks are going more the ensemble approach but there has been some success with that method too, with both Detroit champions. They have some scorers, they have a rebounder, they have a low post man, and they have a capable PG. Now they need some defense and to keep developing continuity. And of course they need a truly dominant player to go to the top. But that does not mean they can't rise to the level of good in the mean time.

So at this point they can't run all out if they need to, but they are getting better and better at taking the quick basket when the defense presents the opportunity. I really think that this is tougher to execute than playing a low-post-centric offense, because that is more about one guy, and an attacking team has to act in concert.

The most important thing to me, and why I have a decent outlook for this team is that the most important players should only get better, and if Marbury can stabilize his play around this level, respectability is right around the corner. Once we attain that, I'll start thinking about the next level.

What do you think about the starting lineup I like?^^^^^^

oohah

Good post oohah. I like your lineup, though in an ideal world I'd start Crawford at PG over Marbury. I know he makes more mistakes, but I think his ability to feed the post and push the tempo would overcome the errors and he'd presumably improve over time. However, I do acknowledge that at this point Marbury is better on D.

But if Eddy is our primary target, with an uptempo attack second, I think JC might be the better way to go. What you're really asking for is "easy baskets," something the Knicks have been desperate for since the Bernard King era. What happened to all the alley oops Crawford and Curry used to have? When was our last oop? And how many more miles does Marbury have on those head and shoulders, knees and toes... knees and toes.

But it does all emanate from the PG position. As an illustration, I believe if we hypothetically traded Curry for Amare little would change in either the Knicks or Suns systems. But if we conversely traded Marbury for Nash both our systems would change dramatically.

I could be way wrong about Crawful at point, but I do think we need to look at the point for our answers.