Vmart wrote:It depends on what type of veterans you bring in. There is a fine line between old and to old. Last year the KNicks were to old and basically the oldest players all hit a wall or pretty much broke apart. Of the top teams they all have something in common some players through the draft. Miami still has Wade and he is the home grown guy on that team. The Spurs have major players from the draft. Pacers have players from draft. You don't want to be the oldest team you want quality vet that are in their prime. But at the same time the draft is where it starts. Miami is not old Ray Allen is old. That is what the Knicks tried to do last year. Two of them retired and Kenyon probably should be retired too.

You have to have a good balance of vets and primed youth. Amare, Chandler and Melo are vets as is Felton and Prigioni. You can't just say you want vets you need quality veterans to go with the young players. There is a big difference between having Rasheed Wallace or Kidd as vets than Bargs and Felton. There is a big difference between Paul Pierce, KG and Bargs and Metta.

I gree, but rookies hit walls, vets hit walls, but IMO if a coach uses his veterans wisely, there wont be any walls. We new kidd logged way too many minutes when Felton went down, prior to coming to the knicks, sheed basically retired because of foot issues, and Camby was injury issue before game 1 of the season..

The way we have used Amare in the past 3 months is the way your supposed to you use a player of 10 or more years, weather injured or 100% healthy. I think 82 is a stretch to asked anybody over 30 to play. Vets like felton, metta, barg lack a certain kind of leadership the should generally come from the coach.

The lack of a high IQ coaching staff makes matters much more difficult, especially if there's no Kidd, Rondo, or CP3 running your team

Our biggest problem (which only a few ppl care to acknowledge), we have a group of talented guys with no direction, that should be playing in a system

fishmike wrote:balance... the old teams also have young guys. Perfect example is SA. Whether its Blair, Neal, whoever... they always seem to have an infusion of youth and fresh legs to go with the old guys. Thats the way to do it.

absolutely balance is key key key we already witnessed what happens when you have to many vets you also dont balance off future years without a nice chronoligically balanced roster id like to keep 9-10 vets add two more and add two rookies thius year

gunsnewing wrote:So no more throwing away lottery picks?

At least with Melo we got a star. You can say we overpaid.. no problem with that opinion. But losing picks on players like Bargs and Eddy Curry... my god.

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:the key to winning is having guys who are willing defenders, old or young. and your core guys have to be two-way players. then you can build on that. can't have a winner when your core guys are one-way players... that will never win in the playoffs.

except Detroit's leading scorer was Rip Hamilton and they won a title. Not sure if you remember but its yet to be confirmed he guarded anyone that year. Did the Mavs win a title with their best player being called Irk (because there's no D) by his own fans? Didnt Steve Nash win 2 MVPs and take a team with NO Amare to the conference finals? Is he a good defender?

Sure... defense is good. Its important. Some players are really good at it. There are other parts of the game, and incase your not sure the winner/loser is determined by the SCORE. Just making sure your aware of that...

hamilton was a decent defender. rangy and good lateral quickness, which is the counterpart to good offensive footwork, and hamilton's footwork on offense was topnotch elite. always squared up no matter where he was. most importantly, however, he was a positive contributor to offensive cohesion. not sure using detroit is a good example. who was the two or three core players? they were balanced and deep.

dirk became a better offensive player as a passer and low post player and that helped make him more of a positive-sum player for his team. his defense was not that bad but he was a great offensive force.

knicks1248 wrote:

Vmart wrote:It depends on what type of veterans you bring in. There is a fine line between old and to old. Last year the KNicks were to old and basically the oldest players all hit a wall or pretty much broke apart. Of the top teams they all have something in common some players through the draft. Miami still has Wade and he is the home grown guy on that team. The Spurs have major players from the draft. Pacers have players from draft. You don't want to be the oldest team you want quality vet that are in their prime. But at the same time the draft is where it starts. Miami is not old Ray Allen is old. That is what the Knicks tried to do last year. Two of them retired and Kenyon probably should be retired too.

You have to have a good balance of vets and primed youth. Amare, Chandler and Melo are vets as is Felton and Prigioni. You can't just say you want vets you need quality veterans to go with the young players. There is a big difference between having Rasheed Wallace or Kidd as vets than Bargs and Felton. There is a big difference between Paul Pierce, KG and Bargs and Metta.

I gree, but rookies hit walls, vets hit walls, but IMO if a coach uses his veterans wisely, there wont be any walls. We new kidd logged way too many minutes when Felton went down, prior to coming to the knicks, sheed basically retired because of foot issues, and Camby was injury issue before game 1 of the season..

The way we have used Amare in the past 3 months is the way your supposed to you use a player of 10 or more years, weather injured or 100% healthy. I think 82 is a stretch to asked anybody over 30 to play. Vets like felton, metta, barg lack a certain kind of leadership the should generally come from the coach.

The lack of a high IQ coaching staff makes matters much more difficult, especially if there's no Kidd, Rondo, or CP3 running your team

Our biggest problem (which only a few ppl care to acknowledge), we have a group of talented guys with no direction, that should be playing in a system

Also agree about "old and old". Most of the vets we signed were coming in off chronic injuries. I believe Grunwald figured that if half of the older guys went down we would still be able to field a competitive squad and for a while it worked. Eventually almost all of them went out. We were without 5 vets at different times for a large part of the season. We can't afford to risk that much again on players that close to retiring.

The coaching staff didn't follow up on those accountability speeches and in some cases the wrong people were being singled out. Jackson will be hovering over the next coach so that should help somewhat. I think thats why in part Woodson wants to come back, to have that cover but he could have handled it himself if he just practiced what he preached.

This squad needs a renovation from top to bottom, in attitude most of all.

dk7th wrote:the key to winning is having guys who are willing defenders, old or young. and your core guys have to be two-way players. then you can build on that. can't have a winner when your core guys are one-way players... that will never win in the playoffs.

It did with Dirk. It depends on the "defensive" core of the team.