If Q is healthy, there is no reason Jamal Crawford should start at the 2 next season. It completely messes up our starting 5. I think we need Balkman or Lee to start at SF next to Eddy and Zach. We need a hustle guy in the front line that can kind of defend.

Jamal fits in perfectly with the second team of Lee, nate and the rookies. If Jamal starts at SG and Q start at SF, Lee and Balkman both come off the bench which means our second unit is mostly hustle and our first unit barely hustles. Jamal coming off the bench solves that problem. Our starting 5 looks like this:

Eddy
Zach
Balkman
Q
Steph

I agree with you. NOt a lot of consistent shooting in that line-up, but Jamal isn't going ot alleviate that. You can play Jamal at the two and Q and that gives us more shooting but I have a hard time understanding what advantages it gives us over the better teams in the league. Plus you only have one defender. But with Balkman at the 3 and Q at the 2, that line-up can really pound it inside on offense and probably is the league's best rebounding team. You have 2 solid perimeter defenders, one okay one.

I also agree that Jamal would be a good fit for the uptempo offensively challenged second unit.

Personally, I think Q and Jeffries will be starting.

This is a no-brainer. Start Q. He's omnipotent.

[Edited by - basketballjones on 07-18-2007 09:14]

I think Crawford should start at PG alongside Q with Marbury off the bench.

That isn't happening.

Could Crawford start for another team?

No Jamal means no passing to the rim for that lineup.

Teams can front Curry and Zach all day long.

Posted by Silverfuel:

If Q is healthy, there is no reason Jamal Crawford should start at the 2 next season. It completely messes up our starting 5. I think we need Balkman or Lee to start at SF next to Eddy and Zach. We need a hustle guy in the front line that can kind of defend.

Jamal fits in perfectly with the second team of Lee, nate and the rookies. If Jamal starts at SG and Q start at SF, Lee and Balkman both come off the bench which means our second unit is mostly hustle and our first unit barely hustles. Jamal coming off the bench solves that problem. Our starting 5 looks like this:

Eddy
Zach
Balkman
Q
Steph

Cosigned. I've been saying this since the season ended. JC off the bench, Q at the SG. Please. Much more balanced. At least until we can get a RELIABLE shooter.

I wouldn't even mind JC at the point, and Marbury off the bench, but I don't like JC starting at the SG.

I'm going to agree with Franco, even though I know it wont happen. Have Marbury come off the bench for many many reasons:

1) Even though it's still not a great option, Crawford is better defending the 1 than Marbury is and Q is better defending the 2.

2) Marbury, with his own words, proved he is willing to take a complete backseat to Curry and Randolf, which to me, is a severe warning sign. He says he wants to get his 12 assists, but how is he gonna do that if Randolf and Curry are one on one players, and Marbury is not a great post/backdoor feeder, while Crawford is solid at that aspect. Therefore, we have one lone perimeter player who's willing to be aggresive on the offensive end and is worthy of starting, and that's Crawford. Nate is good off the bench as well and so is Mardy.

3) I can just see Marbury coming to camp out of shape with this sneaker/Starbury thing, and becoming even more injury prone. How is he going to survive these starting minutes? It's hard to fathom. I guess the fact that he's been built like a pit bull all this time, but it can only take you so far if you start losing your commitment.

Posted by MS:

Crawford has never played defense in his entire night, he is always getting lit up, and his shot is a lot more suspect than marburys for the sheer fact that he never sets himself.

Marbury is the better player is just about every aspect of the game. It's really frightening that Isiah is going to start Crawford, Curry and Zach together i reall don't think you will find three worse defenders at their position not to mention all three are high turnover players. If you want to keep q at the three and collins at the two it makes a lot more sense because then you can play crawford with lee and balkman off the bench and have him run the point, thats the most effective option for this team if they want to go uptempo

I'm surprised there was no mention of anyone being on drugs? What happened? Is this the real MS?

Posted by MS:

If you can explain Marbury's interview on Mike'up without believing he was on drugs your a genius and should take over as the guys publicist

Sweet!! That's what the crowd has been waiting for!

Actually I'm just busting your chops. Lately I've noticed you accusing a lot of posters of being on drugs in responses (hostile!). Even though they clearly are, I still find it funny.