I think this team we have is slower weaker even with Rankle and OG in the game. What good is OG if he keeps getting hurt? RJ was a good play-off player and Quickly was the man. I think we should have kept them until the end of the play offs because they were home grown and were getting better. I don't know what kind of condition OG will be in when he gets back and will this be a Constance thing of him getting hurt I want to know your opinion.

OG is an elite defender no doubt, he's also always hurt so this is no surprise.

Bogs is nice, but not a long term piece and we lost alot of defense there.

Ultimately we traded Obi, RJ, IQ, Grimes, #31 pick and really didn't get a star back. And on top of that we got injury prone guys for guys that played just about every game.

I feel like with that kind of package we should have been able to get a legit star.

Knixkik wrote:Much better off now than before. And I was a huge RJ and Quickley guy. I think the opinion that we are better is fairly universal at this point. Just have to have patience.

Be patient? We gave away our ID was defense and don't tell me OG because he can't stay healthy enough to stay on the court. We talk about getting rid of Randle well if we do we won't be a 500 ball club.

Clean wrote:Acually let me post them.

Quick
21.9 MPG
9 PPG
34% FG%
24% 3pt FG%
1.6reb
1 ast

Grimes
26.9MPG
5.1PPG
30% FG%
24% 3pt FG%
2.8 Reb
1.4Ast

come on guys I loved the kids to. I mean I got into many arguments sticking up for them but lets be realistic here.

i mean thats not unusual for young guys to struggle in their 1st playoffs.

I do think they both struggle a bit under pressure, but I also worry we are now way too reliant on "if OG is healthy".

but really the argument isn't necessarily "should we have traded them", its more of, "did we get enough"? we didn't get a legit star and the closest thing we got is a very injury prone OG.

EwingPSD wrote:I think they are better. I was also really hoping we would get to see a Brunson, DDV, Grimes, OG, and I-Hart lineup while Randle recovered. I know they are a little small but I think it's still very good defensively and would light up the scoreboard in a way we haven't seen in NY.

That lineup is going to be dynamite. We will see it before Randle is back.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced?DateFrom=01/01/2024&DateTo=02/29/2024&dir=A&sort=NET_RATING

What the **** are we complaining about today? That OG missed some games but was otherwise setting historical +/- rating for a single player on a new team. EVER.

Dude had the highest individual impact on the court ever while joining a new team, for like 4 weeks straight.

Open the flood gates of look back.

This is a trick question.

EwingPSD wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

EwingPSD wrote:I think they are better. I was also really hoping we would get to see a Brunson, DDV, Grimes, OG, and I-Hart lineup while Randle recovered. I know they are a little small but I think it's still very good defensively and would light up the scoreboard in a way we haven't seen in NY.

That lineup is going to be dynamite. We will see it before Randle is back.

We don't have Grimes anymore. I think Burks can play the 3 and it would still be explosive but I don't think it has the same punch.

Shit I glossed over that, even with Hart or Burks that lineup would be dynamite.

If we can sign him for low 30m's, and he plays 65+ games it's a win.

if we sign him for 40 and he's playing 43, 48 games like he did two seasons ago then it really makes things difficult.