I think Eddy was pulling a Favre. Wanted to let Beidrins to get the sack record.

This team is all about making carrier high for the players... on opponent’s team.
And people say that are not unselfish. Haters!!!

[Edited by - arkrud on 01-29-2008 12:00 PM]

In defense of Curry having Jamal and Nate jack up 41 shots IS NOT WINNING BASKETBALL EITHER. I saw plenty of times where one of them put up terrible shots GS rebounds and goes down for an easy score.

Posted by bitty41:

In defense of Curry having Jamal and Nate jack up 41 shots IS NOT WINNING BASKETBALL EITHER. I saw plenty of times where one of them put up terrible shots GS rebounds and goes down for an easy score.

and this is why we need a real PG.

I would agree with Bitty- regarding Jamal's play of late but really the backcourt. JC's shooting percentage is still pretty low for an 'effective' shooting guard - it should be above 44 percent. Whenever Crawford shoots around 50 percent the Knicks have a chance in the game. The last few games the guard -have shot horrendously - and if they regain the form they had against the Nets/Detroit etc - shooting over 50 percent - the Knicks are a very different team. Playing inside out -is only effective if your guards knock down shots at a high percentage - over 50 percent.

I understand Isiah's motivation in playing him at the point - in the sense that if Crawford is given additional responsibility to spread the ball - he might be forced to change his mentality of just chucking up shots. But at the same time- the lack of consistency with the other players in terms of shootng (Collins/Robinson/Q) and that not ONE bench player has a consitent midrange jumper (Lee/Balkman/Collins/Jefries) -really puts more pressure on Crawford and typically results in him trying to take a binch of ill-advised shots-as the only recourse to get the KNicks back in the game. Isiah went on record this summer that the Knicks really needed a shooter- and I guess when he looked at the roster spots - he really couldn't see knicking anyone off to keep Nichols. I ampretty sure he felt that with Q/an improving Robinson and Crawford - he could get away with it for a year till Randolph obviated their need by becoming the consistent intermediate shooter they needed and also giving rest to Curry in the post. Well- it hasn't worked out yet - thats for sure -but I don't think -that it won't work out - they probably do need a season or so to make it work out.

When shots don't fall - you have more double teaming of your bigs and your bigs are getting exasperated and feeling that they have to make plays-since passing out of the double team - results in a missed shot from the perimeter where it is hard to figure out where you need to get position for the rebound. Unfortunately - I agree with Eddie Curry - for all his warts and lack of defense - he is a dominant player in the post. Even if he doesn't score at a high rate (which he usually does) - he forces fouls on the other teams bigs (such as he did in Philadelphia). The obvious answer of sending the ball back in to the post- is confounded by the fact the other team knows when the guards are shooting poorly the Knicks are going 'back' to the post. The answer in my view has to do more with Randolph/Lee and Q. The Knicks need to develop curls or screen plays for their bigs/forwards to get the intermediate shot (which Zach excels at and may help Q's shooting percentage). In additin - we really have a dearth of guards who can actually handle the ball- perhaps Robinson - but Crawford for all his tricks - is not a good ball handler.

Isiah is right -that on this team you have several (crawford/Curry/Zach/Nate) players who feel that they 'are' the playmakers and over-extend (generally meaning start putting up hurried shots and not slowing the game down to deliberate sets). Superstars generally connotes consistency -which none of our players have -since if the shots are not falling double teams get shaded to the big men - often leaving Lee to have padded stats.

The addition of Randolph changes a lot for the core of the team -as they continually fail to recognize 'when' to go to him. Many times- they will throw Randolph the ball and think he is curry and going to be able to take it to the hole - when they should realize his strength is the consistent jumper -when he is open and it is going to take time for him (as with Crawford) not to revert to the I will lead the team out of this mess by making a binch of shots (which is basically what I have done all my basketball playing days). In that sense- the Celtics benefit - because all of their core players understand this and are very adept and moving the ball out of the double teams - so that players like Kendrick Perkins, Rondo and Big Baby Davis -appear to be better than they are.

They are definitely improving -thats for sure- but I don't think you will see the true synergy of the team till next season. They do have to get a shooter- such as a James Jones (which by now we all realize that Q has utterly failed in this role) - and unfortunately the bench with Balkman,Collins, Jeffries, Robinson, -you name it ) has NO ability to shoot. We can only hope that Chandler will turn out to be the two way player that Q has not or in the draft we actually get a guard who can shoot the ball.

Posted by islesfan:

So the player that Isiah called a "once in a generation" talent who was worth trading away 2 unprotected picks, isn't even a star in Isiah's eyes.

If Isiah doesn't even see him as one, then why did he trade away so much?

And then compound that mistake trading for a player in Zach who would make him less of a Role Player. But iyamwutiam has helped out a lot showing us I SAY UGH is a very competent GM.

I would only reply that:

1. It makes no sense that Chandler going to NOH -didn't merit a similar deal. That means there is something regarding the Curry deal-whether it be LB, Antonio Davis or Isiah - but agreed - we overpaid for Curry in that sense. How a swap would be non-protected when we all know that the first year or two with a new coach always leads to a bad record is beyond me. That said- Noah or Ty Thomas has not made the Bulls any better - and can be argued have made them worse. Also- the Ben Wallace signing has been roundly seen for what it is- signing an all-pro multiple defensive player of the year who can't score to a big contract is not the way to make your team better. In that sense - I am sure a lot of fans all over the country are keeping quiet on how 'awesome' it would be to get a defensive stopper -as being a "vital" step in making a team competitive.

That being said - I would still have Curry. If used effectively - he will score points in the post- force double teams, and lay a plethora of fouls on the opposition. That is invaluable when and if -the Knicks ever do get into the playoffs. He did lead the team in scoring and the entire NBA in FG% last year - so lets not make out that he is an Adonal Foyle or Eric Dampier or Joel Pryzbilla. Yes- perhaps and probably the Knicks did overpay- but if he reaches even 70 percent of his potential (last year) - he will be decent acquisition.


2. The Q Richardson signing was an all out disaster- the length of the contract, the salary and most of all the complete lack of production has really hurt the conceptual underpinning in making up this team. In fact- with out Q to provide the backbone of some solid shooting - he has compounded the one-dimensionality of the Knicks and highlighted the lack of consitent shooters in the Knicks back court.

JArred Jeffries was at best a C-, he is doing what he is supposed to do- play defense- it is amazing that for a guy who was Mr. Indiana in high school -he has no post up game, no rebounding and worse no 5-10 foot jumpshot.

Crawford - is what he was advertised to be - a decent shooting guard who had upside. The fact that he has no real help to spread the load in terms of shooting from the perimeter and intermediate areas -is not necessarily all his fault. He was never in the league of a Ray Allen or Gilbert Arenas or other premier shooting guards - so i don't understand why people would like to make out that he is.

Nate Robinson/Lee/Balkman are what they were advertised to be athletic , young players who would give the Knicks a good bench. Mardy Collins is probably the only player drafted in the first round that is not in the same category as the other three.

Randolph Morris was a project from day one - which is why no one pursued him. We will see at the end of this year whether or not he has actually improved enough to be a viable backup to Eddie by next year. At this poit in seems he needs atleast another year- but from what I saw he has definitely bulked up and if the Knicks keep him- and he can even give 10-15 minutes at 5 pts/5 rebounds - the Knicks finally have real depth in the frontcourt. Wilson Chandler will be a contributor - but I would agree that even if the season is lost - this is not the year to bring the rookies in to playing time. The focus has to be on getting the core to play with each other as much as possible in game situations.

A lot of people keep talking about the D league- but there is no way in the D league -you get to practice against Crawford/Curry/Robinson/Zbo etc - ever. So I think its fine- they may be on the bench but they have a year or so -to work on their skills and practice everyday against real NBA players.

Zach Randolph - is a good deal if you consider all his positives, that he came for a grossly overpaid Steve Francis buy out and also brought with him two expiring contracts in F. Jones and Dickau. He will be with the team a long time - and if he has improved so much fromthe beginning of the season - there should be little doubt that he will be even more of an addition next year. The main problem was - that the trading of Francis, MArbury's injury and bad year (Father), and M. Collins lack of development (shooting) has definitely upset the implentation of the Knicks scheme of playing inside and out- our lack of back court depth is the biggest glaring weakness and is probably the biggest reason the Knicks are not having a better record and are not a better team. This is probably why Crawford is playing 40 minutes a game.

So I DO agree that Isiah -should be held responsible for this. His belief that Fred Jones would be an addition -was flat out wrong, M. Collins is flat out a bad draft pick, and I don't think that anyone could have seen Marbury's regression from lat year where he appeared to be getting better. But I still think in the long run- Zbo, Curry, Robinson/Lee/Balkman/Crawford/Jeffries - are good additions and will prove their value.