martin wrote:I think Thibs has a general rotation through 3 quarters and then finishes with the players who are playing better. For better or worse.

But Kemba played 17 mins last night. And he generally plays 20 or less unless he’s really scoring. At some point we need to trust that maybe he can be vintage Kemba in the 4th quarter more often. Not allowing Kemba and Fournier to play their way into rhythm is the one disadvantage of having great depth.

franco12 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:I think Thibs has a general rotation through 3 quarters and then finishes with the players who are playing better. For better or worse.

But Kemba played 17 mins last night. And he generally plays 20 or less unless he’s really scoring. At some point we need to trust that maybe he can be vintage Kemba in the 4th quarter more often. Not allowing Kemba and Fournier to play their way into rhythm is the one disadvantage of having great depth.

Except the numbers show that Fournier fades, and when he has played in the 4th, he doesn’t produce. Depth is not stopping these guys from producing, being winded, out of shape or mentally weak is keeping them from being a positive contributor late in games.

It could be that we go extra hard with ISO's in the 4th.

franco12 wrote:

Clean wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:I think Thibs has a general rotation through 3 quarters and then finishes with the players who are playing better. For better or worse.

But Kemba played 17 mins last night. And he generally plays 20 or less unless he’s really scoring. At some point we need to trust that maybe he can be vintage Kemba in the 4th quarter more often. Not allowing Kemba and Fournier to play their way into rhythm is the one disadvantage of having great depth.

Except the numbers show that Fournier fades, and when he has played in the 4th, he doesn’t produce. Depth is not stopping these guys from producing, being winded, out of shape or mentally weak is keeping them from being a positive contributor late in games.

It could be that we go extra hard with ISO's in the 4th.

Look, I am not some expert fan, but am I wrong to think we run a very poorly structured and run offense that, while it may be because of the kind of limited talent we have, pales in comparison to what I have seen this year from other teams and our own in the past under different management with very similar talent? And I'm not saying the talent we had when we had MDA was better than the talent we have, just that MDA made the team look really good on that side of the ball.

It's not just Kemba and Fournier. They're getting paid to produce, and I can't imagine either of them chuckling weakly at MSG's bright lights. My two cents; Thibs wants his best defensive players on the floor in the 4Q. I think it's possible he's got a "no blowouts" mentality, shooting be damned. I don't think he was too thrilled watching Kemba and Fournier star in a 270 point shootout with the Celts to start the season. Definitely not his style of winning.

Then again, WTF do I know?

knicks1248 wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Clean wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

martin wrote:I think Thibs has a general rotation through 3 quarters and then finishes with the players who are playing better. For better or worse.

But Kemba played 17 mins last night. And he generally plays 20 or less unless he’s really scoring. At some point we need to trust that maybe he can be vintage Kemba in the 4th quarter more often. Not allowing Kemba and Fournier to play their way into rhythm is the one disadvantage of having great depth.

Except the numbers show that Fournier fades, and when he has played in the 4th, he doesn’t produce. Depth is not stopping these guys from producing, being winded, out of shape or mentally weak is keeping them from being a positive contributor late in games.

It could be that we go extra hard with ISO's in the 4th.

Look, I am not some expert fan, but am I wrong to think we run a very poorly structured and run offense that, while it may be because of the kind of limited talent we have, pales in comparison to what I have seen this year from other teams and our own in the past under different management with very similar talent? And I'm not saying the talent we had when we had MDA was better than the talent we have, just that MDA made the team look really good on that side of the ball.

I just think we have a traditional line up in a ERA of basketball where most teams play position less basket ball.

You can't shoot 32% as a team from 3 pt land and think your going to win many games. You can't get good looks if your spacing isn't really good .

So as long as we keep trotting out 2 centers that can't space the floor, can't stay healthy, can't shoot and are very slow, we will struggle to score and defend the 3 point line.

We have 2 wings that can shoot but are struggling, Fournier is not much of a catch and shoot player, he tends to turn down open looks to put the ball on the floor and drive into traffic too much.

Kemba is looking for his shot 75% of the time he has the ball. I'm yet to see Kemba take a single baseline 3 all season long.

The chemistry issues are serious because none of these guys will change their game to benefit the team

Other than double spacing, what exactly did you contribute here? Knicks are not playing well? Super.

What was this?

Kemba is looking for his shot 75% of the time he has the ball. I'm yet to see Kemba take a single baseline 3 all season long.

What does that mean?

jskinny35 wrote:I think it means Kemba doesn't really spot up for that kickout 3 from Randle - he kinda does his own thing offensively which isn't gelling well with Randle and RJ's take turns offensive style. I think the Randle-focused offense (he dribbles, initiates, etc) suggests we should find 4 outside shooting players instead of trying to divide the iso time between RJ, Fournier and Kemba when Randle isn't doing his thing. I don't believe this is the way to go for long-term success but if we are sticking with the Randle focus - it's about fitting 4 pieces around 1 larger piece. Bullock certainly complemented Randle well last season. Don't believe Fournier is destined to become a catch and shoot-type player but that is what we will likely evaluate this season.

Think Kemba absolutely fit with Randle. As does EF. Trying not to say that Thibs favors his favorites. Rose played 30 minutes against the Bulls shot 3 for 11 and only scored 2 more than Kemba did yet played more and finished. Kemba just 17 minutes. Rest? Rose deserved to finish?
IQ had 25 minutes and shot 4 for 11. Hard to say Thibs thinks they fit best with Randle for kick outs shooting a 7 for 22 combined. My worry about Rose is that I rarely see his focus on getting others going. Seems to focus on his first. Guess that is wanted in the second unit. Many are pointing at Kemba yet RJ was 2-12, EF 1-7 and Rose and IQ following suit with bad shooting. Point is, when the whole team is struggling hard to point to ONE guy or start a narrative that this guy or that guy needs to be changed.

I do think that at some point Thibs has not give more leeway to EF and Kemba. Have wondered if he was on board with those two coming on. Do think they may not be meeting his defensive intensity requirement but feel that success will depend on if we get them going to the level we know they can play at.

Kemet wrote:Kemba has not change from his Charlotte Hornets days, Kemba still dribble-dribble the shot clock down.
The big problem are Randle does the same thing too LOL
The two would have some success in their lineup when they start passing the ball before they dribble-dribble.
I'm sure their teammates will start moving without the ball to get a pass from them.
I get upset when Randle or Kemba pass the ball to RJ or Fournier and its less than 4 seconds on the shot clock.
Fournier plays best with ball movement, and teammate movement.
RJ Barrett act as if he has to shoot the ball every time someone pass him the ball.
MitchRob was expecting an extension last month, Now u want MitchRob to block-shots, rebound, box-out, plus come out and set picks and screens, then after 20 or more offensive possession none of the selfish starter teammates pass the ball inside to him to score.

I think your insinuating the team has a formula of success and defense is inhibiting this movement. Kemet, its a good observation and one that opponents know. Good defense is closing the passing lanes and force teams to dribble a bit and delay them getting into the offense. This happens but its bad (not ****) when randle and Kemba start forcing shots, or Obi has to take a corner three before 24 sec clock goes off.

I know some of us have floated the idea of swapping out Burks for Fournier to improve the starting lineup's performance and effort level.

I have long been critical of Randle's style of play and while I may be in the minority on this position - I think our two best players may perform better if split up. While I can fully acknowledge that RJ is not performing well and Randle is the better player - I think RJ would likely play better with less Randle and more Toppin/IQ, etc...

I realize because of money/politics it would never happen but if we brought Randle off the bench it would probably help our energy level issue and balance out the 2nd unit well. Again, I understand Thibs would never bench Randle even if he committed a felony - but honestly could see it helping even as a temporary experiment for a few games.

Toppin simply plays faster and brings an energy that our team sorely needs. Same with IQ except IQ seems to play so well off of D Rose that I would keep him with the 2nd unit for now. RJ would have more space and not be relegated to camping out behind the 3pt line waiting for a Randle kick-out. Burks (starting) could help offset some of the offensive deficiency we would lose by bringing Randle in with Rose and the 2nd unit. Mitch seems to pair better with Randle vs Noel IMO.

Wouldn't this combinations offer more balance and help with the low energy levels the starting unit has struggled with this season? I know there are a lot of ways to skin a cat but I keep coming back to Randle's style of play - ISO, no moving without the ball, reduced ball movement as the thing that needs to change.

Noel/Taj
Toppin
Burks
RJ
Kemba

- Defensively we are about the same as before. Offensively if Burks can give us 15-16 I suspect RJ will take that jump as he would handle the ball more. Kemba may play better as the offense would shift from ISO style to allowing Kemba to handle/penetrate (vs waiting behind 3pt line for kick-out). Toppin hustles enough that don't think we lose that much defensively and the pace increases significantly. Noel seems like he does his job regardless of his teammates - Mitch seems like a better fit next to Randle (vs Toppin).

Mitch/Taj
Randle
Fournier
IQ
D.Rose

- Rose and IQ move the ball and bring enough energy that there is balance with Randle's ISO style

jskinny35 wrote:I think our roster fits for a 10-8 record honestly. Our best player is really a 2nd or 3rd star on a ECF playoff team so a little above .500% is probably where we are unless RJ takes a big step or Toppin, Grimes, IQ progress beyond good role player.

I know some of us have floated the idea of swapping out Burks for Fournier to improve the starting lineup's performance and effort level.

I have long been critical of Randle's style of play and while I may be in the minority on this position - I think our two best players may perform better if split up. While I can fully acknowledge that RJ is not performing well and Randle is the better player - I think RJ would likely play better with less Randle and more Toppin/IQ, etc...

I realize because of money/politics it would never happen but if we brought Randle off the bench it would probably help our energy level issue and balance out the 2nd unit well. Again, I understand Thibs would never bench Randle even if he committed a felony - but honestly could see it helping even as a temporary experiment for a few games.

Toppin simply plays faster and brings an energy that our team sorely needs. Same with IQ except IQ seems to play so well off of D Rose that I would keep him with the 2nd unit for now. RJ would have more space and not be relegated to camping out behind the 3pt line waiting for a Randle kick-out. Burks (starting) could help offset some of the offensive deficiency we would lose by bringing Randle in with Rose and the 2nd unit. Mitch seems to pair better with Randle vs Noel IMO.

Wouldn't this combinations offer more balance and help with the low energy levels the starting unit has struggled with this season? I know there are a lot of ways to skin a cat but I keep coming back to Randle's style of play - ISO, no moving without the ball, reduced ball movement as the thing that needs to change.

Noel/Taj
Toppin
Burks
RJ
Kemba

- Defensively we are about the same as before. Offensively if Burks can give us 15-16 I suspect RJ will take that jump as he would handle the ball more. Kemba may play better as the offense would shift from ISO style to allowing Kemba to handle/penetrate (vs waiting behind 3pt line for kick-out). Toppin hustles enough that don't think we lose that much defensively and the pace increases significantly. Noel seems like he does his job regardless of his teammates - Mitch seems like a better fit next to Randle (vs Toppin).

Mitch/Taj
Randle
Fournier
IQ
D.Rose

- Rose and IQ move the ball and bring enough energy that there is balance with Randle's ISO style

I actually think RJ is much better suited coming off the bench considering he is not a one on one player. He’s a good open court player so he would bring the much needed energy. Randle would slow it down and ruin that chemistry. It wouldn’t work.

With that said, I think putting RJ on the bench would have some consequences that make it not necessarily worth exploring.

Nalod wrote:We running at a 45 win clip. That will ebb and flow, but really, we at 7th seed at the moment.
Knicks are about where I thought theyd be. Not where I hoped.
Still some season left, eh?

You thought we'd be only 1.5 games away from the #2 seed?

Cool.