We expect only the best from steph, because he is suppose to be the go-to-guy, and ny’s building block of the future....everything pivots around steph. the ny standard to bring back one of its favorite sons was to at least challenge or make claim to ny’s domain with superb play in leading knicks to .500 performance season. win win win! ….....no explanations needed

We know this to be true by comparison to one of Brooklyn’s finest players of all time, a man of true royalty by virtue of his name.... Bernard King . At the same age of 26, steph put up similar numbers to King. And both players came with a coaching change, but King was the superior brooklynite helping knicks finish 44-38 compared to steph’s 39-43 lackluster finish. I’m not trying to hate on steph, just by coincidence steph’s entry has ny performing in worst playoff in knicks history. His entry to the Olympics couldn’t stop team USA performing worst defeat ever either……again, I hope this is only a coincidence. Only time will tell

Posted by Bobby:

We expect only the best from steph, because he is suppose to be the go-to-guy, and ny’s building block of the future....everything pivots around steph. the ny standard to bring back one of its favorite sons was to at least challenge or make claim to ny’s domain with superb play in leading knicks to .500 performance season. win win win! ….....no explanations needed

We know this to be true by comparison to one of Brooklyn’s finest players of all time, a man of true royalty by virtue of his name.... Bernard King . At the same age of 26, steph put up similar numbers to King. And both players came with a coaching change, but King was the superior brooklynite helping knicks finish 44-38 compared to steph’s 39-43 lackluster finish.

LOL! The Knicks were above .500 with Steph. You're not blaming him for the losses the Knicks had before he joined the Knicks, are you? You Steph critics have even less of a case than I realized

THe economy was recovering very well until Steph hit walls street!

Amen to that, brother!

pessimists these days....where's the optimism???

Posted by Solace:

This is silly. Isles is being way too critical of Marbury. Marbury isn't a 'superstar' like some make him out to be, but jesus, he's still the best player on the Knicks and is better than most of the Knicks players of the last decade. In the opinion of most, he's also a top 3 point guard. I don't know what else you could possibly want from him? It just seems like you're hating and microanalyzing any negatives, while ignoring all positives. I find myself in somewhat of a middle ground, as I'm not completely in love with Marbury as some, but I certainly try to be fair. Isles, your criticism isn't really fair, especially something like criticizing him for finally having a decent game against the Nets in game 4. That's just silly and argumentative.

Solace, with all due respect, I don't think that I'm unfairly criticizing Marbury at all. How did I criticize him for having a decent game 4? If anything I think that shows the type of player that he can be but wasn't in the previous games. I just put the blame for that on him having a couple of bad performances instead of trying to make excuses.

I've said from day 1 that Marbury is an excellent player but as a PG and team player he leaves a little to be desired. I don't think that's microanalyzing, I think his 9 year career, with 4 different teams (I'm not counting Milwaukee), has proven it.

I'm not sure how I'm hating when I said after the Marbury and Crawford trades that the Knicks have improved and been transformed from a lottery team to a 4-7 seed playoff team that can get out of the 1st rd but most likely not more than that. Being nothing more than a pretender instead of an actual championship contender is what I have a problem with. If that's truly the case I don't know why anybody would be satisfied with mediocrity.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bobby:

You're not blaming him for the losses the Knicks had before he joined the Knicks, are you?

of course not......but the way we finished is suspect

It was more of a rhetorical question. By lumping together the games the Knicks played before getting Steph with the games they played after getting him and blaming him for a 39-43 record, you obviously ARE implicitly blaming him for the 14-21 record without him. Otherwise, you would judge him on the above .500 record with him and not include the games before he joined the team

Not that I agree that Marbury should have games, that he didn't play in, reflect on him, but what's the difference between doing that and giving Isiah credit for games that Layden's Knicks teams won.

This has been addressed in other forums and I see no reason to change the topic to it here. If you want, when I get a chance, I'll try to find one of the links to a thread at MSG where you made the same comment and I responded to it and I'll post that link here.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Wow, anyone who has posted with Solace for a long time knows that he never gives Isiah a free pass and if even *he* thinks you're being too critical of Isiah or one of his players, it's a really striking statement. (Fish knows this)

Oh, well if Fish knows this... Let me guess, you play the Aide and he plays the G... nevermind.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Bobby:

You're not blaming him for the losses the Knicks had before he joined the Knicks, are you?

of course not......but the way we finished is suspect

It was more of a rhetorical question. By lumping together the games the Knicks played before getting Steph with the games they played after getting him and blaming him for a 39-43 record, you obviously ARE implicitly blaming him for the 14-21 record without him. Otherwise, you would judge him on the above .500 record with him and not include the games before he joined the team

Well, if you want to get technical (not that I agree with this argument), the Knicks were under .500 with Steph if you include the 4 game playoff sweep.

Solace, nothing personal taken at all. (Even Fish knows this) I wasn't saying that it would've been better if Marbury's play had been consistently poor, I was saying that it would make the excuses given for his poor play in games 1, 2 and 3 a little more plausible. My point is that if he plays poorly then just say that he played poorly instead of always trying to make excuses as to why. Why is that so awful? If he played well under those same conditions he would be lauded for doing so, so why is it unreasonable to criticize him when he doesn't? Everything can't be a "no lose" situation where zero criticism is allowed.

The Arroyo over Marbury comment was pretty much tongue in cheek. Although I do wish our PG was a little more team oriented and better at getting his teammates involved instead of trying to do everything himself. Better defense would also be nice, but I digress. I'm not going to insult you and anybody else and say that I've been positive about most things about how the Knicks are "retooling" but I do believe that I have been somewhat positive as I tried to show in my previous post.

For me though, it all comes down to becoming legitimate championship contenders and you're right, this isn't a way that I can see it getting done. You talk about "infinite funds" but there's no such thing. Sure Dolan has the money and is willing to spend it but every big trade we make we've taken 4-8 times what we gave up in huge contracts. That can't keep happening forever and it's not like the people we've gotten are sure things that fit together flawlessly. By limiting ourselves to "expiring contracts" as a way to adding players we're setting ourselves up for a decade of mediocrity where we can only attract players whose current teams no longer want.

Like I've said before, if Marbury is a piece of the puzzle that leads us to the finals or maybe even a championship in 3 years then I'll be more than happy to admit how wrong I was and I'll sit here all day long eating crow and washing it down with Isiah's Kool-Aid.

Islesfan your the homer king... you really are. At times its entertaining.

You know what? Your right. I'm a homer, the Knicks suck, Isiah will ruin everything, Marbury isnt any good.

Now if you can feel better about things why dont you run along back to MSG... I'm sure there are more homers to convert over there. Considering your the only one thats every being "realistic" in a debate and everyone else you debate with is just drinking kool-aid you have a lot of work to do over there.