# Should we start robinson?



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

many of you will criticize me for this, i think we should start robinson. Marbury has shown no improveness in his game. At least, i havent seen it. hes still the bad decision, drive to the room, bad perimeter shooting player ive seen last year. I know robinson might make bad decisions, ubt he gets the job done better than ive seen marbury do this year. He drives to the room better, and i personally think hes an outside threat. he shows perseverance, and marbury doesnt. I think starting robinson will be a step in the right direction, IMO.


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

Can't just jump into things after 3 games. You bench Steph, and you can kiss the whole season goodbye. Despite the fact that we would be better suited to rebuild, Isiah needs to win now. Benching his best player would not be wise after only 3 games. Let's give Marbury and Francis at least until January to gel. If we ain't going anywhere by then, change it up.


----------



## dynamiks (Aug 15, 2005)

I feel we shouldnt play Francis and Steph together when Jared is back we should let him start push Q to the 2 spot and have Marbury playing the 1.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Mr.Educated said:


> many of you will criticize me for this, i think we should start robinson. Marbury has shown no *improveness* in his game. At least, i havent seen it. hes still the bad decision, drive to the room, bad perimeter shooting player ive seen last year. I know robinson might make bad decisions, ubt he gets the job done better than ive seen marbury do this year. He drives to the room better, and i personally think hes an outside threat. he shows perseverance, and marbury doesnt. I think starting robinson will be a step in the right direction, IMO.


Hehe. Improveness.

Nate isn't a starter, and I predict he never will be. He's always gonna be a high-energy 6th man, and a damn good one. You start him, and you lose that scoring punch off the bench. The punch which is supposed to be from Crawford, but is not working out right now.


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

Chan said:


> Hehe. Improveness.
> 
> Nate isn't a starter, and I predict he never will be. He's always gonna be a high-energy 6th man, and a damn good one. You start him, and you lose that scoring punch off the bench. The punch which is supposed to be from Crawford, but is not working out right now.




Nate will never be a starter for what reasons? that he is short? that he makes the same bad mistakes as any average type rookie in the league? you cant tell the future from the present. hes only 23-24 years old, he can still be that 6th energy bench man, which you and many others predict he will be, i just dont want marbury here. For his lack of self discipline, he hasnt shown that he can lead this team, and i think if we start younger we can get to higher level then we are. Lee frye, robinson, balkman have shown what they could do off and on the bench. I just would like to see what they can do starting. lee almost averages a double double off the bench, and if he was in the game more than his 14 to 20 minute range i can see him scoring, as well for robinson.


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

Sorry about improveness.. hehe i meant improvement :biggrin: 

Check the name


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Mr.Educated said:


> Nate will never be a starter for what reasons? that he is short? that he makes the same bad mistakes as any average type rookie in the league? you cant tell the future from the present. hes only 23-24 years old, he can still be that 6th energy bench man, which you and many others predict he will be, i just dont want marbury here. For his lack of self discipline, he hasnt shown that he can lead this team, and i think if we start younger we can get to higher level then we are. Lee frye, robinson, balkman have shown what they could do off and on the bench. I just would like to see what they can do starting. lee almost averages a double double off the bench, and if he was in the game more than his 14 to 20 minute range i can see him scoring, as well for robinson.


So based on 3 games into the season your able to deduce that Marbury can not succeed in this offense? Nate Robinson can never be a starter because of his game. On this board and many others, Robinson has constantly been bashed for not being a traditional PG or having the qualities of one. I personally do not believe he should be restricted to a certain skill set because of his height as long as he can make an impact on the game. As of right now, he's a 2 guard and although that is acceptable now and the future, his ability to start is hampered by that as a result of his height and skill set.


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> So based on 3 games into the season your able to deduce that Marbury can not succeed in this offense? Nate Robinson can never be a starter because of his game. On this board and many others, Robinson has constantly been bashed for not being a traditional PG or having the qualities of one. I personally do not believe he should be restricted to a certain skill set because of his height as long as he can make an impact on the game. As of right now, he's a 2 guard and although that is acceptable now and the future, his ability to start is hampered by that as a result *of his height and skill set*.


Thats the whole reason i wanted him to play. That "skill set" which you are speaking of has helped the knicks in more ways marbury has. His ineffectiveness hasnt lasted just these three games yet dating back to last year. Nate is what 5'10? and your saying someone 5'10 who can jump 3-4 feet, cant stand with someone like TJ ford, or even earl boykins?I feel being small is actually a bigger advantage. Better drive to the rim, faster, and people do not worry about you thinking your not a threat.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Mr.Educated said:


> Nate will never be a starter for what reasons? that he is short? that he makes the same bad mistakes as any average type rookie in the league? you cant tell the future from the present. hes only 23-24 years old, he can still be that 6th energy bench man, which you and many others predict he will be, i just dont want marbury here. For his lack of self discipline, he hasnt shown that he can lead this team, and i think if we start younger we can get to higher level then we are. Lee frye, robinson, balkman have shown what they could do off and on the bench. I just would like to see what they can do starting. lee almost averages a double double off the bench, and if he was in the game more than his 14 to 20 minute range i can see him scoring, as well for robinson.


Starters tend to lose that energy. He can start, I just think he shouldn't.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Mr.Educated said:


> Thats the whole reason i wanted him to play. That "skill set" which you are speaking of has helped the knicks in more ways marbury has. His ineffectiveness hasnt lasted just these three games yet dating back to last year. Nate is what 5'10? and your saying someone 5'10 who can jump 3-4 feet, cant stand with someone like TJ ford, or even earl boykins?I feel being small is actually a bigger advantage. Better drive to the rim, faster, and people do not worry about you thinking your not a threat.


5'7".


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Yes, 5'7*

but who cares? He is strong and has high energy. If he can get the job done, more power to him. The biggest problem he has had is lack of discipline and consistency. He seems to be improving both. Maybe, just maybe......


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

It's not time for Nate to be a Starter, the same way it is not time for Frye to be a Starter. 
That does not mean that they are not 30 minute players on many nights. 

Coach Isiah have to do something quick with this NO-DEFENSE, To Much Dribble, NO-Communication, Marbury, Francis, Crawford lineup that is making everyone (but Bum Q.Rich) look bad.


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

Nate has the energy to come off the bench same as Lee, Balkman and sometimes Crawford. They will be our second unit. This is gonna be our team once everybody gets back.
CE-Curry/Lee
PF-Frye/Balkman
SF-Jeffries/Richardson
SG-Francis/Crawford
PG-Marbury/Robinson

Cato and Collins see little time.


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

KVIP112 said:


> Nate has the energy to come off the bench same as Lee, Balkman and sometimes Crawford. They will be our second unit. This is gonna be our team once everybody gets back.
> CE-Curry/Lee
> PF-Frye/Balkman
> SF-Jeffries/Richardson
> ...


What about Malik Rose? I might want to see him a little more after last night. Have him play center.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

EwingStarksOakley94 said:


> Can't just jump into things after 3 games. You bench Steph, and you can kiss the whole season goodbye. Despite the fact that we would be better suited to rebuild, Isiah needs to win now. Benching his best player would not be wise after only 3 games. Let's give Marbury and Francis at least until January to gel. If we ain't going anywhere by then, change it up.


I honestly felt, that we can, we were catching up when David, Malik, Nate, Mardy, and Renaldo were in the game. Seriously, then Steph came back and decided to be "Mr. Big Shot," took a whole bunch of shots and started getting cocky. After making several and within 3 he decided to pull up for the stupid 3 which he missed, game over.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

KVIP112 said:


> Nate has the energy to come off the bench same as Lee, Balkman and sometimes Crawford. They will be our second unit. This is gonna be our team once everybody gets back.
> CE-Curry/Lee
> PF-Frye/Balkman
> SF-Jeffries/Richardson
> ...


Until Frye finds his game, and until Jeffries is back, id rather it be:
Curry/Frye
Lee/Rose
Q/Balkman
Francis/Crawford
Marb/Nate


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: Yes, 5'7*



alphaorange said:


> but who cares? He is strong and has high energy. If he can get the job done, more power to him. The biggest problem he has had is lack of discipline and consistency. He seems to be improving both. Maybe, just maybe......


I still don't like it, but if Marbury keeps this up, you gotta do what's best for the team. I'd give Marbury a few more games to prove he's worth starting.


----------

