BRIGGS wrote:The Pheonix Suns in 2005 were able to physically out-gun opponents with a fierce up and down style with long athletes that hadn't really been seen in the NBA. I don't see why we cannot duplicate the success? I don't think anyone predicted such wild success for them and that is exactly why I think we will have something similar. It's going to be unexpected at first and then teams will realize they can't match up--putting them on their heels before games--how many games did Phoenix win with knock- out blow runs? Now we do need enhancement on the bench--I think they know that and similarly we do not have a 7-1 260 pound guy we can rely on BUT I think the combination of size speed and length at 5-4-3-2(with speed and power at 1) -will have a shocking effect that most fans wont realize until we play the games.

A few points:
-I'm not convinced we want to duplicate the Suns' strategy!
-Even if Felton is better than he looked in Charlotte (I agree), he is no Steve Nash.
-I highly doubt our third best player will be as good as Marion was in that 61 win season (18 pts, 10 rbs, 2 steals, 1.5 blocks, 52% FG). We don't have a third or even a second player who has come close to those numbers.
-I do agree that this team has the potential to surprise people and win about 45 games though.

Vmart wrote:

franco12 wrote:except the suns also would go through long scoring droughts.

Can't wait for the season to start, but I see us as borderline 500 with a win total in the mid-high 30s - 37,38, 39.

I think it will take a year for guys to 'get it' and for some of the younger guys like Gallo & AR to hit their own stride.

Assuming things are kept as is for 2011-12, then I could see us taking a big step - but it would be too unlikely out of the gate.

I think this team has a lot of unknowns on it. That is why I think they will win around 36 games this year. I have said this many a times the Knicks success revolves around Gallo and Chandler. They have to elevate their games to a higher level. If they aren't averaging 18-20 a game very unlikely the Knicks crack the .500 mark.

Amare will do his thing. Felton I view as a slight upgrade at the point, he could easily revert to the poor shooting Felton that we all know. Randolph isn't a proven player with injury history talented yes unproven yes. The team is no doubt defensively improved.

I can understand the doubt but having seen how much better the team looked when Duhon played well it's easy to see that good PG play made a huge diff. If we had Felton last year as flawed as that team was we might've been close to .500. That's how bad Duhon and all our PG's were.

Now you'd have to predict no improvement from Gallo, Chan and AR, plus no help from the other additions for this team to struggle so much that they only win 7 more games. We would do better than that with just a PG improvement last yr! If Felton is anywhere close to the shooting % he had last year this is an above .500 team.

rvwink wrote:"I highly doubt our third best player will be as good as Marion was in that 61 win season (18 pts, 10 rbs, 2 steals, 1.5 blocks, 52% FG). We don't have a third or even a second player who has come close to those numbers."

The amazing thing about those numbers is that the Matrix was able to consistently average 10 rebounds a game year after year even with other teams and he was just 6' 7". But there is more to it than just those numbers. During his best season in Phoenix the Matrix was playing 40 minutes a game. In his first year with Phoenix, he averaged 6.6 rebounds a game playing 24 minutes. Anthony Randolph in 22.7 minutes last year, averaged 6.5 rebounds a game. I think he is coming along slower because he needs to add weight and muscle before he can rebound up to his potential. Also being 6'11" may affect his ability to improve significantly on his numbers, once he adds more weight. AR only scored 11.6 points a game, which is definitely not 18 points a game, but he shot .443, and certainly didn't have difficulty getting off shots. His ability to take score more, probably relates to Don Nelson wanting him to concentrate on rebounding, rather than scoring.

I once had about a half hour conversation with Tiny Archibald. He came from a small college and his coach didn't believe he was an NBA player. I asked him how an unproven player could get so many scoring opportunities from his team early in his career. He said he replaced Oscar Robertson in the lineup, who was traded the previous year. Oscar was a 30 point a game guy, so the team was set up for scoring from the guard position. Also I believe Bob Cousy was the coach, and Bob Cousy certainly was open to scoring from the guard position. So my point is that scoring frequently depends on what the particular team is set up to do.

I believe both Anthony Randolph and the Rooster are both capable of being high quality contributors to the Knicks. but I would add that its not just about a team's offensive contributors. The Knicks likely have more players proven to be interested in playing defense than Phoenix did back then. It hard to figure what Knicks future potential is with their current lineup, plus the extra money they have to allow them to add even more talent in the next season or so.

The difference between the two of them is that the Matrix hit the ground running. He wasn't tall by NBA standards, but he had the strength and smarts to rebound well against taller competition from his Rookie year. Because AR's body first needs to change, and then he needs to develop additional boxing out skills, his time table is dramatically different. Also being undersized under the basket explains his additional injuries.

Concerning whether AR will be, 1,2, 3 or 4 doesn't matter that much to me. Gallinari could also be an excellent player, but because he is performing a different role and therefore making different contributions, its hard to figure out relative value. His shooting from outside will help make room for AR to penetrate. I don't see him getting 10 rebounds, so I didn't mention him, but he could be quite valuable as well. A lot of it depends on where D'Antoni feels he wants the scoring to come from, and also who Felton feels most comfortable passing the ball to.

year 1 4.3
year 2 8.7
year 3 9.4
year 4 9.7
year 5 12.5
year 6 18.7

Clearly some of the improvements game from increased minutes. more came from additional self confidence. But I'll bet a lot of improvement came from improved technique including blocking out, and increased strength. (Frankly I was surprised it took Dennis so long to reach the high level he more or less was able to maintain for the following 7 years). Interestingly enough, David Lee like Matrix was able to rebound well from his first year on when you take minutes into the equation. But I think that is because Rodman was skinny like AR, and Lee was already chunky.