Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1572417613661192194

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TheStrickland/status/1572422068867837953

EwingsGlass 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?

Injuries aside, the Nets have Kyrie, KD and Joe Harris by way of example. Philly has Embiid, Harris and Maxey. Boston has Tatum, Brown and Williams.

I didn't mention any other players once. I am saying that the relationship between winning and continuity is not that continuity causes winning but that winning causes continuity. Once you find what works, you keep it. Until then, you change it up til you find what works. Keep adding and subtracting.

I think you are saying things backwards. This has nothing to do with my willingness to play Toppin.

Come on man. You know dam well the consistency I am talking about is with your main pieces/"starters". Nets have been anything but consistent. Let's casually leave out James Harden. How many games did JJ,KD and Irving play together? Philly? Guess you forgot Harden again How did adding him go? Instant chip? Boston had success. That was my point. They have Brown, Tatum and Smart. Held them together despite every two bit armchair GM wanting a "shuffle" the last couple of years.

But you keep acting like this is about continuity and not our KNICKS? My post on a thread calling for KNICK optimism was how important, Imho, it will be to give RJ,MR and Randle (forgot EF) another year together. As well as our bench. And that the ones calling for a trade (Randle,EF) do not understand the importance of continuity. In this case a SECOND year of having the same guys in the starting lineup. Something that the Knicks have trouble doing. (I wanted Bullocks and Burks back last year as well) Yet you pick continuity to go back and forth about? You claim it's not because of Obi, Randle, EF? I disagree. Considering we went back and forth about trading/starting Randle for Obi? And that it was the main point of my post.

EwingsGlass wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass 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?

Injuries aside, the Nets have Kyrie, KD and Joe Harris by way of example. Philly has Embiid, Harris and Maxey. Boston has Tatum, Brown and Williams.

I didn't mention any other players once. I am saying that the relationship between winning and continuity is not that continuity causes winning but that winning causes continuity. Once you find what works, you keep it. Until then, you change it up til you find what works. Keep adding and subtracting.

I think you are saying things backwards. This has nothing to do with my willingness to play Toppin.

Come on man. You know dam well the consistency I am talking about is with your main pieces/"starters". Nets have been anything but consistent. Let's casually leave out James Harden. How many games did JJ,KD and Irving play together? Philly? Guess you forgot Harden again How did adding him go? Instant chip? Boston had success. That was my point. They have Brown, Tatum and Smart. Held them together despite every two bit armchair GM wanting a "shuffle" the last couple of years.

But you keep acting like this is about continuity and not our KNICKS? My post on a thread calling for KNICK optimism was how important, Imho, it will be to give RJ,MR and Randle (forgot EF) another year together. As well as our bench. And that the ones calling for a trade (Randle,EF) do not understand the importance of continuity. In this case a SECOND year of having the same guys in the starting lineup. Something that the Knicks have trouble doing. (I wanted Bullocks and Burks back last year as well) Yet you pick continuity to go back and forth about? You claim it's not because of Obi, Randle, EF? I disagree. Considering we went back and forth about trading/starting Randle for Obi? And that it was the main point of my post.

You keep making very general statements that confuse correlation with causation to make your points.

What ever you say bro. Stick to your guns on what this was really all about.
At least we can agree that. like all true Knick fans, we will be rooting for the Knicks to do well.
ALL the Knicks!

Philc1 wrote:I’m optimistic for the upcoming season but man did Silver screw us again having us open the season @Grizzlies.

So you think Silver made the schedule?
That the point was to "Screw the knicks"?
Or........
That opening night game is on ESPN?

Jmpasq wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:The issue with Robinson is the free throws that basically preclude him from being in the crunch time lineup of a close game. Rotation wise it gets tricky. That being said, if RJ can't finish better at the rim, you need Robinson in there for the putbacks.

Knicks look like they have at least one rotation player too many.

Fournier needs to go. More playing time for Quickley, Grimes, and Reddish

Move RJ to the 4 full time they will get plenty of playing time and we actually start winning games

Knixkik wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Time for some positivity. We played a helluva game against probably the best team in the nba in their building

The real test is winning the next 3 games.

All 3 are winnable games

HofstraBBall wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I’ve spent most of the offseason criticizing the Knicks. I spent most of the season doing that too. Rather than picking everything apart, particularly things we need to change, I think there is a lot of build on.

Let’s start with Brunson.

Jalen Brunson had an insane playoff series and in Doncic’s absence he obliterated defenses with his drives into the paint. His aggressive drives led to 40 point performance. Donovan Mitchell was the only player with more drives in the playoffs. I think if Brunson is given that free will to drive in NY, and the Knicks can spread the floor around him, I think his insanely good eFG for a Point Guard will be a huge asset.

A healthy Derrick Rose is fantastic. He makes smart plays and wills the team to win. Only person that loses from Rose coming back is IQ.

Fournier/Grimes as a 1/2 combo come in with pretty solid eFGs also. Forget defense for a moment, that’s a team sport and Brunson will hold down PG better than Kemba did which will allow Fournier/Grimes to do better as well. Smart money moves Fournier to the second unit and let’s Grimes pick up the tougher defensive assignment while Brunson is on the floor.

Barrett/Reddish. Barrett and Reddish have a couple things in common. SF. Duke. Propensity to take the toughest defensive assignments. These guys like picking up the best offensive players. With Barrett’s new contract maybe the game slows down a bit and he can focus on other aspects of the game rather than the money stats. I think lock down defender is is best place to get those bonus checks. Reddish is in a contract year and has struggled to stay on the court. But his biometrics, his FT%, all say that he can be the penultimate 3&D player in the league. No joke. I am serious. He needs to commit to being that kind of guy - a Kawhi like defensive stopper and then the rest will come. The minutes, the points and the recognition. A big line up with Barrett/Reddish/Toppin can bang with the biggest lineups in the league. I’m a believer in Reddish. I though my he had the highest upside of the Duke trio. Still do. Zion was the monster with health risk. Barrett was the surest bet. Reddish had the best upside.

Randle/Toppin is a fantastic duo. Completely different looks. Slim Randle looks like he used the offseason to get ready to play next to Brunson. His defense is legitimately among the best at PF in the league. For all the headaches last year and forced shots, if he commits to this team as a defensive stopper, a willing passer and a third option scorer, we are legitimate contenders. And he is all NBA again. He’ll get 20/10/5 as a third option on this team.

Robinson/Hart/Sims is a really fantastic combo. Robinson and Sims have some of the highest FG% in the league. Hart is coming off a campaign that with added role, looks like a Jokic clone. The passing, the trailing 3 and the commitment to defense will help this team dramatically.

Best thing this team can do is forget starting vs second unit, it needs to spread the floor and play defense.

I think this
Brunson/Rose(IQ)
Grimes/Fournier(IQ)
Barrett/Reddish (Fournier)
Randle/Toppin
Hart/Robinson

I think moving Hart and Grimes to the first unit with 24 minute splits makes this team better. Hart next to Randle will give a bit better spacing where Robinson can be more aggressive in the second unit. Love love Robinson and don’t want him to be slighted in the second unit. It’s only about floor spacing. I think Fournier’s defensive shortcoming disappear in the second unit.

If the Knicks increase their passes per game (they were among the worst in the league last year) I think they use the offense to pressure the other team and wear them down.

There’s a lot to like here. Hopefully these guys have career years.

After one game, I think the basis for optimism is real. Forgetting win loss for a moment, we saw a lot of the positives last night. Randle and Reddish being the two standouts there. I think tomorrow night against the Pistons at home will get rid of all the jitters. Looking to see more of last night's Reddish. I am still a believer.

Was hoping for a quicker pace and more passing as you stated but impressed with the comeback and fight. Do agree that a loss can sometimes cloud some positives.
Think it's promising when you almost beat a top tier team yet one of your top players goes 3-18, your top second unit performers have bad games and your starting PG and SG go 11-29.
Also nice to see that we have a team where a kid who may be pegged as the 11th man can come in and have such an impact on the game.
Think the guys that struggled will bounce back. Maybe trying too hard to have an impact. Hoping Randle stays with the team game and substitutes some of those threes with aggressive moves to the basket to draw fouls. Think our second unit will be back to last year once Grimes comes back. Will open up high energy plays for IQ/Obi combo.
Think the next 3 games will be important. Sometimes it's tougher playing teams you should beat.

IMO against Memphis the Knicks really did not play well as cohesive units (first/second teams both on offense and defense). But given all the adversity.......a highly rated Memphis team, a crazed opening night crowd on the road, the significant foul trouble the Knicks experienced, playing against Ja as well as the ref superstar deference to Ja on some key calls, RJ basically being an offensive liability all game.....it actually makes me significantly optimistic based on the game outcome and fact that with some key shots down the stretch and in OT, the game could have been ours for the taking.

Sad to see Knox not making early returns. HOpe the kid can carve out a career.

EwingsGlass wrote:IQ with zero points, but 7 assists and 4 Rebs. I’m good with this IQ. That shot will start falling. He’s having a tremendous impact on the game.

Fournier playing solid defense. Might be catching the refs off guard. They are calling him on some maybe fouls.

Randle playing pretty tight.

Brunson with solid play.

Barrett with solid defense but iffy offense.

Mitch Rob dominating the paint.

Toppin slammin and jammin.

I’m developing a Reddish Fetish. Copyright Ewingsglass

Pretty awesome team play.

The obvious take on this team so far is Brunson “making everyone better.” It may not be that simplistic but he might be the PG we’ve been longing for forever. If you think about it, the 4th seed Knicks of two years ago were made during a run with a hot Derrick Rose running the point - a run his body wouldn’t let continue. I’ll also add that Brunson makes Thibs much better!