EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Things to like this offseason:

Free agency additions of Brunson and Hart. Take two of our worst positions and upgraded.

Randle looks a bit more slim and his footwork looks improved. Will help with his off the ball movement. Looks like a guy ready to embrace Brunson and his position as primary ball handler. Very positive sign. I’m ready to forgive last season. Looking forward to seeing the energy he brings this season.

Fournier leading France to Silver in EuroBasket. He played gritty on offense. Didn’t see any clips on defense, but some of his moves to get back to the 3pt line showed a quickness I haven’t seen before from him. Good stuff. Hope he brings that energy to camp.

Barrett’s contract takes a lot of question marks off the table. Perhaps it allows him not to press so hard and be that two way player he is showing. Shows a lot more strength which will help him against bigger SFs. Hope that added strength shows on his ability to finish at the hoop. Still has all the ability to be the number one on this team.

Mitch Robinson’s sky hook. Nuff said.

Sounding like we will have a healthy starting 5 walking into camp. Might have a healthy 10 if Rose is ready. I think the best second unit in the league now has a starting unit that looks like it will hold its own.

I’m aching to see something from Cam Reddish (happy birthday!). He is the guy I am actually most excited about. Might still have the highest upside on this team. Hoping he gets a real shot this year.

Biggest thing for me, is that is another year of RJ, Randle, MR playing together. As well as most of our bench. Many who call to trade this guy or dump that guy don't understand the importance of continuity in basketball. Boston's main guys have been playing together for many years. Their fans were also calling for trades but they finally saw the benefits of sticking with players and letting them form chemistry. Most good teams in the East have a consistent roster who have played together for years.

Boston gave up a first to remove Kemba’s contract thus allowing Marcus Smart to start and win the DPOY. Good teams develop a core, but are not afraid to shuffle the deck if it isn’t working. Boston has been better managed over the last 20 years. Knicks are playing catch-up trying to develop both a current team and an institution. I can sign on for continuity and development, but sometimes accepting a loss and removing it is the right decision. See Boston.

Also, I think your perception of continuity in the East is skewed. Miami, Philly and Brooklyn have been swapping stars the last few seasons. Mediocre teams in the East haven’t moved much. Only team that fits that bill in my view is Milwaukee and they won a chip after they made a blockbuster for Jrue Holiday.

Simpler answer is that good teams find teams that work. Sounds stupid, but it might be that simple.

So you are against continuity?
Boston removing an older injury plagued PG who played just 40 plus games is reasonable and a good example of well thought out management. Not an example of giving up continuity for just another hopeful. Who is talking about moves like that?
I am talking about keeping guys together more than just a year and changing starting lineups every other year and expecting success. I am talking about keeping your All Star, despite an off year from three, over handing over the keys to a guy who has not proven much. I am talking about first seeing how your new TRUE PG can improve those producing players contribution to winning. I am talking about keeping your healthy young producing players and giving them a chance to grow within a reasonable time frame.

As for adding pieces, Of course good pieces are always needed to make a roster better. Ie. an actual PG worth a lick. But I am talking about reasonable patience over knee jerk moves towards unproven solutions. Reasonable being the key word. Something those typical bing bong fan are not willing to give. Smart was not driven to the G league or traded because it took him time to earn a starting role. Good players can still develop in the second unit, keep producing and eventually show their worth.

And yes, if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two. Your example of Philly and Nets only highlights that. Having some of the best players in the world meant nothing due to lack of continuity. Continuity is one of the most important things for success. Most good teams have that. We are the revolving door of the NBA with a whole bunch of fan hopeful trials, one year rentals and has beens. So yes, preaching that we steer towards continuity with solid producers and not towards knee jerk fan moves seems practical.

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Things to like this offseason:

Free agency additions of Brunson and Hart. Take two of our worst positions and upgraded.

Randle looks a bit more slim and his footwork looks improved. Will help with his off the ball movement. Looks like a guy ready to embrace Brunson and his position as primary ball handler. Very positive sign. I’m ready to forgive last season. Looking forward to seeing the energy he brings this season.

Fournier leading France to Silver in EuroBasket. He played gritty on offense. Didn’t see any clips on defense, but some of his moves to get back to the 3pt line showed a quickness I haven’t seen before from him. Good stuff. Hope he brings that energy to camp.

Barrett’s contract takes a lot of question marks off the table. Perhaps it allows him not to press so hard and be that two way player he is showing. Shows a lot more strength which will help him against bigger SFs. Hope that added strength shows on his ability to finish at the hoop. Still has all the ability to be the number one on this team.

Mitch Robinson’s sky hook. Nuff said.

Sounding like we will have a healthy starting 5 walking into camp. Might have a healthy 10 if Rose is ready. I think the best second unit in the league now has a starting unit that looks like it will hold its own.

I’m aching to see something from Cam Reddish (happy birthday!). He is the guy I am actually most excited about. Might still have the highest upside on this team. Hoping he gets a real shot this year.

Biggest thing for me, is that is another year of RJ, Randle, MR playing together. As well as most of our bench. Many who call to trade this guy or dump that guy don't understand the importance of continuity in basketball. Boston's main guys have been playing together for many years. Their fans were also calling for trades but they finally saw the benefits of sticking with players and letting them form chemistry. Most good teams in the East have a consistent roster who have played together for years.

Boston gave up a first to remove Kemba’s contract thus allowing Marcus Smart to start and win the DPOY. Good teams develop a core, but are not afraid to shuffle the deck if it isn’t working. Boston has been better managed over the last 20 years. Knicks are playing catch-up trying to develop both a current team and an institution. I can sign on for continuity and development, but sometimes accepting a loss and removing it is the right decision. See Boston.

Also, I think your perception of continuity in the East is skewed. Miami, Philly and Brooklyn have been swapping stars the last few seasons. Mediocre teams in the East haven’t moved much. Only team that fits that bill in my view is Milwaukee and they won a chip after they made a blockbuster for Jrue Holiday.

Simpler answer is that good teams find teams that work. Sounds stupid, but it might be that simple.

So you are against continuity?
Boston removing an older injury plagued PG who played just 40 plus games is reasonable and a good example of well thought out management. Not an example of giving up continuity for just another hopeful. Who is talking about moves like that?
I am talking about keeping guys together more than just a year and changing starting lineups every other year and expecting success. I am talking about keeping your All Star, despite an off year from three, over handing over the keys to a guy who has not proven much. I am talking about first seeing how your new TRUE PG can improve those producing players contribution to winning. I am talking about keeping your healthy young producing players and giving them a chance to grow within a reasonable time frame.

As for adding pieces, Of course good pieces are always needed to make a roster better. Ie. an actual PG worth a lick. But I am talking about reasonable patience over knee jerk moves towards unproven solutions. Reasonable being the key word. Something those typical bing bong fan are not willing to give. Smart was not driven to the G league or traded because it took him time to earn a starting role. Good players can still develop in the second unit, keep producing and eventually show their worth.

And yes, if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two. Your example of Philly and Nets only highlights that. Having some of the best players in the world meant nothing due to lack of continuity. Continuity is one of the most important things for success. Most good teams have that. We are the revolving door of the NBA with a whole bunch of fan hopeful trials, one year rentals and has beens. So yes, preaching that we steer towards continuity with solid producers and not towards knee jerk fan moves seems practical.

Fixed.

If you look at most teams (not just successful teams) in the NBA you will see three players in the starting lineup that have been there for more than a year or two.

I think winning creates continuity more than continuity creates winning.

I think top 20 players win championships though. Have to look back to about 2004 Detroit to find a team that won with depth instead of two or more top 20 players.

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Things to like this offseason:

Free agency additions of Brunson and Hart. Take two of our worst positions and upgraded.

Randle looks a bit more slim and his footwork looks improved. Will help with his off the ball movement. Looks like a guy ready to embrace Brunson and his position as primary ball handler. Very positive sign. I’m ready to forgive last season. Looking forward to seeing the energy he brings this season.

Fournier leading France to Silver in EuroBasket. He played gritty on offense. Didn’t see any clips on defense, but some of his moves to get back to the 3pt line showed a quickness I haven’t seen before from him. Good stuff. Hope he brings that energy to camp.

Barrett’s contract takes a lot of question marks off the table. Perhaps it allows him not to press so hard and be that two way player he is showing. Shows a lot more strength which will help him against bigger SFs. Hope that added strength shows on his ability to finish at the hoop. Still has all the ability to be the number one on this team.

Mitch Robinson’s sky hook. Nuff said.

Sounding like we will have a healthy starting 5 walking into camp. Might have a healthy 10 if Rose is ready. I think the best second unit in the league now has a starting unit that looks like it will hold its own.

I’m aching to see something from Cam Reddish (happy birthday!). He is the guy I am actually most excited about. Might still have the highest upside on this team. Hoping he gets a real shot this year.

Biggest thing for me, is that is another year of RJ, Randle, MR playing together. As well as most of our bench. Many who call to trade this guy or dump that guy don't understand the importance of continuity in basketball. Boston's main guys have been playing together for many years. Their fans were also calling for trades but they finally saw the benefits of sticking with players and letting them form chemistry. Most good teams in the East have a consistent roster who have played together for years.

Boston gave up a first to remove Kemba’s contract thus allowing Marcus Smart to start and win the DPOY. Good teams develop a core, but are not afraid to shuffle the deck if it isn’t working. Boston has been better managed over the last 20 years. Knicks are playing catch-up trying to develop both a current team and an institution. I can sign on for continuity and development, but sometimes accepting a loss and removing it is the right decision. See Boston.

Also, I think your perception of continuity in the East is skewed. Miami, Philly and Brooklyn have been swapping stars the last few seasons. Mediocre teams in the East haven’t moved much. Only team that fits that bill in my view is Milwaukee and they won a chip after they made a blockbuster for Jrue Holiday.

Simpler answer is that good teams find teams that work. Sounds stupid, but it might be that simple.

So you are against continuity?
Boston removing an older injury plagued PG who played just 40 plus games is reasonable and a good example of well thought out management. Not an example of giving up continuity for just another hopeful. Who is talking about moves like that?
I am talking about keeping guys together more than just a year and changing starting lineups every other year and expecting success. I am talking about keeping your All Star, despite an off year from three, over handing over the keys to a guy who has not proven much. I am talking about first seeing how your new TRUE PG can improve those producing players contribution to winning. I am talking about keeping your healthy young producing players and giving them a chance to grow within a reasonable time frame.

As for adding pieces, Of course good pieces are always needed to make a roster better. Ie. an actual PG worth a lick. But I am talking about reasonable patience over knee jerk moves towards unproven solutions. Reasonable being the key word. Something those typical bing bong fan are not willing to give. Smart was not driven to the G league or traded because it took him time to earn a starting role. Good players can still develop in the second unit, keep producing and eventually show their worth.

And yes, if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two. Your example of Philly and Nets only highlights that. Having some of the best players in the world meant nothing due to lack of continuity. Continuity is one of the most important things for success. Most good teams have that. We are the revolving door of the NBA with a whole bunch of fan hopeful trials, one year rentals and has beens. So yes, preaching that we steer towards continuity with solid producers and not towards knee jerk fan moves seems practical.

Fixed.

If you look at most teams (not just successful teams) in the NBA you will see three players in the starting lineup that have been there for more than a year or two.

I think winning creates continuity more than continuity creates winning.

I think top 20 players win championships though. Have to look back to about 2004 Detroit to find a team that won with depth instead of two or more top 20 players.

Now it's "Most" teams?
Thought we were talking about "Successful" teams. Unless you brought up Boston to refer to most teams. I mentioned that to be successful (top team) you need continuity.
You disagreed and brought up Boston/Kemba. Not realizing they have three players that have played together for a LONG time. You brought up the Nets and Philly to claim continuity is not needed. I pointed out that they have some of the best players but still failed. GS has had the same 3 key players for how long? Bucks have had Middleton and Greek for how long? But ok we disagree. I think continuity is important for success and you think it is not. Just don't see how any Knick fan can be for continuing to throw something different on the wall each year and seeing if "Success" happens. It's like groundhog day. Btw, agree about needing a top 20 player, But don't think Rose has too many of those in his back pocket. If so, I am all ears.

We both know the real issue is how this pertains to what we want for our Knicks..
You want Obi, Grimes to start and Randle and EF to be traded.
I want (mentioned above). Also in no rush to do something just to see what sticks without first seeing how the current changes and another year of continuity affect winning.
FO seems to be on the same page. I'm glad and curious to see how it plays out.

No. Your proof that continuity is key to being successful was

"if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two."

I think this statement is silly because if you look at nearly all teams in the NBA (both winning teams and losing teams), they satisfy that same statement. Its like saying all successful teams have 5 players in the starting lineup. While true, all losing teams have 5 players in the starting lineup also. Its not a proof.

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Things to like this offseason:

Free agency additions of Brunson and Hart. Take two of our worst positions and upgraded.

Randle looks a bit more slim and his footwork looks improved. Will help with his off the ball movement. Looks like a guy ready to embrace Brunson and his position as primary ball handler. Very positive sign. I’m ready to forgive last season. Looking forward to seeing the energy he brings this season.

Fournier leading France to Silver in EuroBasket. He played gritty on offense. Didn’t see any clips on defense, but some of his moves to get back to the 3pt line showed a quickness I haven’t seen before from him. Good stuff. Hope he brings that energy to camp.

Barrett’s contract takes a lot of question marks off the table. Perhaps it allows him not to press so hard and be that two way player he is showing. Shows a lot more strength which will help him against bigger SFs. Hope that added strength shows on his ability to finish at the hoop. Still has all the ability to be the number one on this team.

Mitch Robinson’s sky hook. Nuff said.

Sounding like we will have a healthy starting 5 walking into camp. Might have a healthy 10 if Rose is ready. I think the best second unit in the league now has a starting unit that looks like it will hold its own.

I’m aching to see something from Cam Reddish (happy birthday!). He is the guy I am actually most excited about. Might still have the highest upside on this team. Hoping he gets a real shot this year.

Biggest thing for me, is that is another year of RJ, Randle, MR playing together. As well as most of our bench. Many who call to trade this guy or dump that guy don't understand the importance of continuity in basketball. Boston's main guys have been playing together for many years. Their fans were also calling for trades but they finally saw the benefits of sticking with players and letting them form chemistry. Most good teams in the East have a consistent roster who have played together for years.

Boston gave up a first to remove Kemba’s contract thus allowing Marcus Smart to start and win the DPOY. Good teams develop a core, but are not afraid to shuffle the deck if it isn’t working. Boston has been better managed over the last 20 years. Knicks are playing catch-up trying to develop both a current team and an institution. I can sign on for continuity and development, but sometimes accepting a loss and removing it is the right decision. See Boston.

Also, I think your perception of continuity in the East is skewed. Miami, Philly and Brooklyn have been swapping stars the last few seasons. Mediocre teams in the East haven’t moved much. Only team that fits that bill in my view is Milwaukee and they won a chip after they made a blockbuster for Jrue Holiday.

Simpler answer is that good teams find teams that work. Sounds stupid, but it might be that simple.

So you are against continuity?
Boston removing an older injury plagued PG who played just 40 plus games is reasonable and a good example of well thought out management. Not an example of giving up continuity for just another hopeful. Who is talking about moves like that?
I am talking about keeping guys together more than just a year and changing starting lineups every other year and expecting success. I am talking about keeping your All Star, despite an off year from three, over handing over the keys to a guy who has not proven much. I am talking about first seeing how your new TRUE PG can improve those producing players contribution to winning. I am talking about keeping your healthy young producing players and giving them a chance to grow within a reasonable time frame.

As for adding pieces, Of course good pieces are always needed to make a roster better. Ie. an actual PG worth a lick. But I am talking about reasonable patience over knee jerk moves towards unproven solutions. Reasonable being the key word. Something those typical bing bong fan are not willing to give. Smart was not driven to the G league or traded because it took him time to earn a starting role. Good players can still develop in the second unit, keep producing and eventually show their worth.

And yes, if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two. Your example of Philly and Nets only highlights that. Having some of the best players in the world meant nothing due to lack of continuity. Continuity is one of the most important things for success. Most good teams have that. We are the revolving door of the NBA with a whole bunch of fan hopeful trials, one year rentals and has beens. So yes, preaching that we steer towards continuity with solid producers and not towards knee jerk fan moves seems practical.

Fixed.

If you look at most teams (not just successful teams) in the NBA you will see three players in the starting lineup that have been there for more than a year or two.

I think winning creates continuity more than continuity creates winning.

I think top 20 players win championships though. Have to look back to about 2004 Detroit to find a team that won with depth instead of two or more top 20 players.

Now it's "Most" teams?
Thought we were talking about "Successful" teams. Unless you brought up Boston to refer to most teams. I mentioned that to be successful (top team) you need continuity.
You disagreed and brought up Boston/Kemba. Not realizing they have three players that have played together for a LONG time. You brought up the Nets and Philly to claim continuity is not needed. I pointed out that they have some of the best players but still failed. GS has had the same 3 key players for how long? Bucks have had Middleton and Greek for how long? But ok we disagree. I think continuity is important for success and you think it is not. Just don't see how any Knick fan can be for continuing to throw something different on the wall each year and seeing if "Success" happens. It's like groundhog day. Btw, agree about needing a top 20 player, But don't think Rose has too many of those in his back pocket. If so, I am all ears.

We both know the real issue is how this pertains to what we want for our Knicks..
You want Obi, Grimes to start and Randle and EF to be traded.
I want (mentioned above). Also in no rush to do something just to see what sticks without first seeing how the current changes and another year of continuity affect winning.
FO seems to be on the same page. I'm glad and curious to see how it plays out.

No. Your proof that continuity is key to being successful was

"if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two."

I think this statement is silly because if you look at nearly all teams in the NBA (both winning teams and losing teams), they satisfy that same statement. Its like saying all successful teams have 5 players in the starting lineup. While true, all losing teams have 5 players in the starting lineup also. Its not a proof.

Do most successful teams have around three players that have been with them for more than two years?
That was my statement. If you want to say ALL teams have three starters who have been playing more than a couple of years together, we can look into that. And I'm sure you do not think I am saying continuity is just a couple of years? Maybe the bing bong crowd does.

Silly was bringing up Boston, Philly, Nets as your example where continuity did not matter.
Considering all three prove the opposite.

But again, still do not see your real gripe with me saying continuity is important?
Or how it translates to Knicks which was my reference.
As mentioned, think it's mostly your view on Randle, Obi, EF and Grimes?

one of you is arguing continuity begets winning.

the other is arguing winning begets continuity.

Doesn't matter which - I think we're going to start to see both as this franchise is now run with a solid front office team and coach.

franco12 wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:Things to like this offseason:

Free agency additions of Brunson and Hart. Take two of our worst positions and upgraded.

Randle looks a bit more slim and his footwork looks improved. Will help with his off the ball movement. Looks like a guy ready to embrace Brunson and his position as primary ball handler. Very positive sign. I’m ready to forgive last season. Looking forward to seeing the energy he brings this season.

Fournier leading France to Silver in EuroBasket. He played gritty on offense. Didn’t see any clips on defense, but some of his moves to get back to the 3pt line showed a quickness I haven’t seen before from him. Good stuff. Hope he brings that energy to camp.

Barrett’s contract takes a lot of question marks off the table. Perhaps it allows him not to press so hard and be that two way player he is showing. Shows a lot more strength which will help him against bigger SFs. Hope that added strength shows on his ability to finish at the hoop. Still has all the ability to be the number one on this team.

Mitch Robinson’s sky hook. Nuff said.

Sounding like we will have a healthy starting 5 walking into camp. Might have a healthy 10 if Rose is ready. I think the best second unit in the league now has a starting unit that looks like it will hold its own.

I’m aching to see something from Cam Reddish (happy birthday!). He is the guy I am actually most excited about. Might still have the highest upside on this team. Hoping he gets a real shot this year.

Biggest thing for me, is that is another year of RJ, Randle, MR playing together. As well as most of our bench. Many who call to trade this guy or dump that guy don't understand the importance of continuity in basketball. Boston's main guys have been playing together for many years. Their fans were also calling for trades but they finally saw the benefits of sticking with players and letting them form chemistry. Most good teams in the East have a consistent roster who have played together for years.

Boston gave up a first to remove Kemba’s contract thus allowing Marcus Smart to start and win the DPOY. Good teams develop a core, but are not afraid to shuffle the deck if it isn’t working. Boston has been better managed over the last 20 years. Knicks are playing catch-up trying to develop both a current team and an institution. I can sign on for continuity and development, but sometimes accepting a loss and removing it is the right decision. See Boston.

Also, I think your perception of continuity in the East is skewed. Miami, Philly and Brooklyn have been swapping stars the last few seasons. Mediocre teams in the East haven’t moved much. Only team that fits that bill in my view is Milwaukee and they won a chip after they made a blockbuster for Jrue Holiday.

Simpler answer is that good teams find teams that work. Sounds stupid, but it might be that simple.

So you are against continuity?
Boston removing an older injury plagued PG who played just 40 plus games is reasonable and a good example of well thought out management. Not an example of giving up continuity for just another hopeful. Who is talking about moves like that?
I am talking about keeping guys together more than just a year and changing starting lineups every other year and expecting success. I am talking about keeping your All Star, despite an off year from three, over handing over the keys to a guy who has not proven much. I am talking about first seeing how your new TRUE PG can improve those producing players contribution to winning. I am talking about keeping your healthy young producing players and giving them a chance to grow within a reasonable time frame.

As for adding pieces, Of course good pieces are always needed to make a roster better. Ie. an actual PG worth a lick. But I am talking about reasonable patience over knee jerk moves towards unproven solutions. Reasonable being the key word. Something those typical bing bong fan are not willing to give. Smart was not driven to the G league or traded because it took him time to earn a starting role. Good players can still develop in the second unit, keep producing and eventually show their worth.

And yes, if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two. Your example of Philly and Nets only highlights that. Having some of the best players in the world meant nothing due to lack of continuity. Continuity is one of the most important things for success. Most good teams have that. We are the revolving door of the NBA with a whole bunch of fan hopeful trials, one year rentals and has beens. So yes, preaching that we steer towards continuity with solid producers and not towards knee jerk fan moves seems practical.

Fixed.

If you look at most teams (not just successful teams) in the NBA you will see three players in the starting lineup that have been there for more than a year or two.

I think winning creates continuity more than continuity creates winning.

I think top 20 players win championships though. Have to look back to about 2004 Detroit to find a team that won with depth instead of two or more top 20 players.

Now it's "Most" teams?
Thought we were talking about "Successful" teams. Unless you brought up Boston to refer to most teams. I mentioned that to be successful (top team) you need continuity.
You disagreed and brought up Boston/Kemba. Not realizing they have three players that have played together for a LONG time. You brought up the Nets and Philly to claim continuity is not needed. I pointed out that they have some of the best players but still failed. GS has had the same 3 key players for how long? Bucks have had Middleton and Greek for how long? But ok we disagree. I think continuity is important for success and you think it is not. Just don't see how any Knick fan can be for continuing to throw something different on the wall each year and seeing if "Success" happens. It's like groundhog day. Btw, agree about needing a top 20 player, But don't think Rose has too many of those in his back pocket. If so, I am all ears.

We both know the real issue is how this pertains to what we want for our Knicks..
You want Obi, Grimes to start and Randle and EF to be traded.
I want (mentioned above). Also in no rush to do something just to see what sticks without first seeing how the current changes and another year of continuity affect winning.
FO seems to be on the same page. I'm glad and curious to see how it plays out.

No. Your proof that continuity is key to being successful was

"if you look at most successful teams in the NBA, you will see that they have around three players that have been playing together in the starting lineup for more than just a year or two."

I think this statement is silly because if you look at nearly all teams in the NBA (both winning teams and losing teams), they satisfy that same statement. Its like saying all successful teams have 5 players in the starting lineup. While true, all losing teams have 5 players in the starting lineup also. Its not a proof.

Do most successful teams have around three players that have been with them for more than two years?
That was my statement. If you want to say ALL teams have three starters who have been playing more than a couple of years together, we can look into that. And I'm sure you do not think I am saying continuity is just a couple of years? Maybe the bing bong crowd does.

Silly was bringing up Boston, Philly, Nets as your example where continuity did not matter.
Considering all three prove the opposite.

But again, still do not see your real gripe with me saying continuity is important?
Or how it translates to Knicks which was my reference.
As mentioned, think it's mostly your view on Randle, Obi, EF and Grimes?

one of you is arguing continuity begets winning.

the other is arguing winning begets continuity.

Doesn't matter which - I think we're going to start to see both as this franchise is now run with a solid front office team and coach.

You are right.

BigDaddyG wrote:Oh, oh... Just giving Thibs more excuses to grind the last bit of cartilage in those knees

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NBA_NewYork/status/1572326613722992641

ToddTT wrote:

martin wrote:I’m getting pumped to see Rose play again

BigDaddyG wrote:Oh, oh... Just giving Thibs more excuses to grind the last bit of cartilage in those knees

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NBA_NewYork/status/1572326613722992641

He had a bone spur removed from his ankle. I could see how that could be incredibly painful, and that he might be feeling fan-****ing-tastic now.

Definitely looking forward to the stability he can bring. His +/- was great for us when he was healthy.

I was hoping for a healthy Noel on the defensive side, but he did have hands like feet, and Hartenstein looks like a nice pickup.

Until proven wrong, I will assume Hart has the same skill set as Nikola Jokic.

EwingsGlass wrote:

ToddTT wrote:

martin wrote:I’m getting pumped to see Rose play again

BigDaddyG wrote:Oh, oh... Just giving Thibs more excuses to grind the last bit of cartilage in those knees

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NBA_NewYork/status/1572326613722992641

He had a bone spur removed from his ankle. I could see how that could be incredibly painful, and that he might be feeling fan-****ing-tastic now.

Definitely looking forward to the stability he can bring. His +/- was great for us when he was healthy.

I was hoping for a healthy Noel on the defensive side, but he did have hands like feet, and Hartenstein looks like a nice pickup.

Until proven wrong, I will assume Hart has the same skill set as Nikola Jokic.

Why put limits on the guy?