# Lenny Please,Its not rocket science!!



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Get Shandon Anderson out of the game...FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is not worthy of being a backup,let alone a starter..Hes a complete offensive liability,and its a 4 on 5 game when he is in..The guy is just #$%horrible..Air mail him to Scott Laydens house and lock him up...

Kurt Thomas..He just does not have the physical tools to match up with Jerseys fowards..If you want to play him,put him at the 5 on Collins or Arron Williams..He not an athlete..period...

Play Sweetney with the starters.....Hes our best power foward,play him with our best players..

START DJ..Kittles is the perfect matchup for DJ..He wont be overpowered,like Artest or James..And at least he can stick the 3 and penetrate...

Lenny,I am begging you,wake the #$%&^U** up!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I'd start:

PG=Penny
SG=Marbury
SF=Dermarr or TT if available
PF=Sweets
C= KT if he can shoot, otherwise Nazr. Deke should certainly be in at anytime Kidd is off the court.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

I don't know about y'all, but everytime Shandon was sent in I started crying again for the Knicks. When we're down by 20+, Shandon is NOT the answer. Hell when we're UP by 20+, Shandon STILL isn't the answer. 

Man what was IT thinking getting Lenny as coach...he looks like he's lost out there and that is affecting our players negatively. If Lenny isn't fired in the offseason I'mma stop watching the Knicks...cuz even if he had the Lakers team they wouldn't be doing well. I exhausted my lungs yesterday cursing at the TV...the Knicks can play a lot better than this and I know it.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

we cant play against the NETS 4 against 5,and every time Shandon is in there thats what we are doing....he cant shoot,is a walking turnover,and has a basketball IQ of 0.....

Isiah should get out of the #$%^^& tunnel,walk up to the Knick bench and shove Lenny over and just start coaching


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> he cant shoot,is a walking turnover,and has a basketball IQ of 0.....


Shandon Anderson: 5 assists, 3 turnovers.
Stephon Marbury: 2 assists, 2 turnovers.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Shandon Anderson: 5 assists, 3 turnovers.
> Stephon Marbury: 2 assists, 2 turnovers.



yep, marbzy had less turnovers than shandon anderson!


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

oh, and about the assists marbury was playing mostly 2 guard yesterday due to shandons' INABILITY!, and by the way if timmy cannot go this should be our lineup



pg- marbury
sg- dermarr
sf- penny
pf- kurt/sweets
c- naz/mutumbo/kurt OR

pg- fwill
sg- marbury
sf- dermarr
pf- kurt/sweets
c- naz/tumbo/kurt


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

Don't you love how Rashidi goes out of his way to contradict the general consensus ? You'd think the guy would move to Jersey or something considering how much he seems to hate the Knicks.... ...or heck move to Brooklyn so that you can support the Nets when they get there...maybe you'll start posting in THEIR forum more often and leaving us to our thoughts...


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

hey, dont diss brooklyn i live there! im rooting for the knicks in this series tho DONT CONFUSE THAT!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> You'd think the guy would move to Jersey or something considering how much he seems to hate the Knicks....


the guy is a joke..plain and simple....

his act is old and the moderators for the terminally dumb should really step in and intervene

Shandon "i have no game" Anderson and Marbry in the same sentence???

Shandon Anderson who couldnt start for most decent college teams???


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>knicksfan</b>!
> hey, dont diss brooklyn i live there! im rooting for the knicks in this series tho DONT CONFUSE THAT!


 No worries man, I love Brooklyn  , it's just that I was getting tired of the same old rants from the guy..


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> You'd think the guy would move to Jersey or something considering how much he seems to hate the Knicks....


Silly Knick fans. Just because I'm not a sheep like all of you, doesn't make me a fan. You're all hypocrites when you bash me, because you're only doing it because I have a different view than you do. You just criticize people if you don't understand them. I have continually stated my views on the Knicks, and why I do not think trading for Marbury is the godsend idea everybody would like to think it is. The Knicks are a marginal .500 team. They aren't anywhere close to a championship. Marbury doesn't make his teammates better. Not even close to the way a Jason Kidd does. This is why Marbury loses everywhere, and why Kidd wins everywhere. A real superstar does this. I officially no longer think Marbury to be better than Steve Nash or Sam Cassell.

You can build a team around a superstar. You can build one around Tim Duncan. Kevin Garnett. Shaquille O'Neal. Tracy McGrady. Kobe Bryant. Jason Kidd. Allen Iverson. Paul Pierce. You can't build a team around Stephon Marbury. That's what the Knick plan is, and people are actually happy that the Knicks decided to raise their payroll even further just to get back to the playoffs. Because 2 years without the playoffs is TORTURE to an NBA franchise. Please. Knick fans act like their team hit rock bottom. Nope. The Celtics hit rock bottom. The Bulls hit rock bottom. The Magic hit rock bottom. The Nuggets hit rock bottom. The Clippers and Wizards have been at rock bottom for the past decade or so. The Knicks weren't even close, they were a .500 team for most of last year even after a gamble that didn't pay off.

You can't build a team around Steve Nash. You can't build a team around Sam Cassell. And you can't build a team around Stephon Marbury.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> I officially no longer think Marbury to be better than Steve Nash or Sam Cassell.


Officially? You in the field of public relations? haha


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> You can build a team around a superstar. You can build one around Tim Duncan. Kevin Garnett. Shaquille O'Neal. Tracy McGrady. Kobe Bryant. Jason Kidd. Allen Iverson. Paul Pierce. You can't build a team around Stephon Marbury.....
> 
> You can't build a team around Steve Nash. You can't build a team around Sam Cassell. And you can't build a team around Stephon Marbury.


I don't disagree with the last part but I do with some of the first part. I'd go so far as to assert you really can't build a team around anything less than a center or power forward. You can pick any hall of fame guard, be it Clyde, Oscar, West, Monroe, Maravich, Payton, Kobe, T-Mac, Kidd, whoever... without sufficient front court players they go nowhere.

And it helps if they have a nice backcourt companion too. If I knew that Houston was as shot as I now think he is, I may have opposed the Marbury trade. With Marbury, Houston, VH/Spree/TT, we had the makings of a nice 1 thru 3 position. KT or Sweetney could be an adequate forth option, leaving just a center, or superb powerforward, to make us competitive. But as it stands now we are very far from having it together.

Of course with Houston down, and no Marbury, we'd be even further from having it together, as the likelihood of picking up a Marbury caliber player in mid-round picks is also very slim. Face it, we got screwed with the Houston signing, Spoon, Anderson, Eisley, and trading picks for bench guys like Jackson and Othella. If the plan was to rebuild through the draft and clear cap space for a FA, we'd have done none of that stuff. Nor would we have traded Spree's shorter contract for VH's longer one. Our fated mediocrity was sealed long ago, under you know who's watch.

PS, I'll spare someone the effort of correcting me. There is an execption to the rule, you can build a team around Michael Jordan.


----------



## inapparent (Jul 2, 2003)

You can't build a championship caliber  team around AI and no one has put one or built one around P-Squared either. While I agree that Marbury doesn't transform his teammates the way Kidd does his, I also have to say that NO ONE makes his teammates improve the way Kidd does--it's almost unfair to compare Marbury to him and the difference between them doesn't make Marbury suck. That being said, it's clear Marbury needs more help than he has, more even that a healthy Houston wold provide (tho that would be a good start and would make them a 3 or 4 seed type of team--but i think H2O will never be the same again).


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

im indifferent about the marbury trade, i can wait a few years to see what isiah will do. Layden did kill the franchise, and it was a good move to get rid of him. But i was happy with sucking and getting cap space. What free agent wouldnt want to play in new york? I woulda been happy if Dolan hired somebody who wanted to rebuild. Thats another pipedream, as Dolan did not want to rebuild, he doesnt give a damn about the team, he just wants poeple in the seats and money in his pocket. Isiah was in a tough situation and he basically has been doing the same exact thing Scott Layden has been doing, except he took it to a whole other level and gave way more than anything layden ever gave for way more then layden ever got. 

if i had a time machine and somehoww layden kept his job, I wouldnt be surprised if Layden had made the marbury trade. 

People will be happy for a while. I know i was happy when we got Dyess. After he went down in the preseason...then it all went down the drain. 

People are happy with Stephon. He has two busted ankles. We dont have many more draft picks to trade to actually make the team any better then it is right now. 

i think this is gonna be a never ending cycle. We should start geting used to first round exits.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Max Payne</b>!
> 
> 
> No worries man, I love Brooklyn  , it's just that I was getting tired of the same old rants from the guy..


You better get used to it, becuase that is all you are going to hear from him.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Silly Knick fans. Just because I'm not a sheep like all of you, doesn't make me a fan. You're all hypocrites when you bash me, because you're only doing it because I have a different view than you do. You just criticize people if you don't understand them. I have continually stated my views on the Knicks, and why I do not think trading for Marbury is the godsend idea everybody would like to think it is. The Knicks are a marginal .500 team. They aren't anywhere close to a championship. Marbury doesn't make his teammates better. Not even close to the way a Jason Kidd does. This is why Marbury loses everywhere, and why Kidd wins everywhere. A real superstar does this. I officially no longer think Marbury to be better than Steve Nash or Sam Cassell.
> ...


Rashidi, I respect the fact that you have different opinions. I do not respect the fact that you are always criticizing the team. As a "fan" you have the right to have your own opinions, but IMO a fan does not bash his "team" every single chance he gets. Rashidi, I have asked this question over and over again, and you have NEVER answered it. Why don't you just answer it now. When was the last time you had something POSITIVE to say about the Knicks? It is a simple question, all you have to do is point out the thread and we can all go check. Just answer the da*n question this time instead of trying to defend yourself. 

Rashidi, we all know you dislike the moves IT made. Ok, it is your right, but do you really think that EVERYTHING the Knicks have been doing are wrong? If you could just say ONE positive thing every now and then we would know that you don't try to criticize the team just to be negative. 

Rashidi, I really would like to see you reply to this.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>inapparent</b>!
> You can't build a championship caliber team around AI and no one has put one or built one around P-Squared either. While I agree that Marbury doesn't transform his teammates the way Kidd does his, I also have to say that NO ONE makes his teammates improve the way Kidd does--it's almost unfair to compare Marbury to him and the difference between them doesn't make Marbury suck. That being said, it's clear Marbury needs more help than he has, more even that a healthy Houston wold provide (tho that would be a good start and would make them a 3 or 4 seed type of team--but i think H2O will never be the same again).


I would disagree with you saying that you can't build a championship team around AI, but that isn't the point here right now. I think you made a good point by pointing out Kidd. Do you consider the Nets as a championship caliber team? They did make it to the finals the past two years. And even though they have K-Mart he isn't that big a difference maker IMO. You look out West you can Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Webber as post players in the playoffs that I would take over K-Mart, and there are the players that are like him or not in the playoffs such as Malone and Brand. You look East and there is O'neil and Wallace. My point is that while K-Mart is good he isn't a post player you build your team around, and the Nets are as good as they are because of Kidd. He seems to be one of the few non-post players you can build a team around. Granted, Kidd didn't do much in Pheonix and Dallas, but Kidd really does make everyone around him better. The Nets are as good as they are because of Kidd, the top PG in the NBA. It is a bit unfair to compare Marbury to Kidd.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Why don't you just answer it now. When was the last time you had something POSITIVE to say about the Knicks?


When is the last time Knick fans had something positive to say about Rashidi?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> When is the last time Knick fans had something positive to say about Rashidi?


I will say this positive about you.That last post of yours which i will title "


> Marbury doesn't make his teammates better.


 was a great post....
In fact I just got done bashing you in your post about Marbury having more bad games than good,when you make the same point,in a much better manner.

There is a huge difference in those two posts..Take it for what it is worth,put you should learn from the adage,"Its not what you say,its how you say it"......

If your whole point all along was "Marbury doesnt make his teamates better",I have grown to appreciate that statement.In fact I made the exact same post saying Frank Williams is a better pure point than Stephon...I would go so far to say Stephon is really a Joe Dumars 2 guard or an Iverson type of player..I am not enamored with him at the point

Rashidi,if you think everyone else is crazy,you are probably the crazy one.....Its not what you say,its how you say it


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> You can build a team around a superstar. You can build one around Tim Duncan. Kevin Garnett. Shaquille O'Neal. Tracy McGrady. Kobe Bryant. Jason Kidd. Allen Iverson. Paul Pierce. You can't build a team around Stephon Marbury


Fact
Other than a team having Superman=MJ and his sidekick Pippen,you need the Big Man

Its been all Shaq,Hakeem,TD for a long time now....

TMAC is a perfect example....One guy can not get the job done..Is he a loser??Why is he in a different category then Starbury??Paul Pierce???Whats he done??AI?????You sure hes better than Starbury and you want to build around him??KG is great,but he has been MR one and done,which Mr Kidd may have been if the Nets played in the West


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

In spite of the fact I agree that Kidd is the best PG in the league right now, the fact remains, I really doubt the Knicks would be any better with Kidd. They might even be worse as we are desperate for shooters, which Kidd is not. 

Kidd just happens to have the perfect supporting cast for him in NJ. In Phoenix he was always the next *emerging* great PG, but still considered second to the likes of Payton and Stockton. Now in NJ he has three guys who can leap, and increasingly shoot, and defend. All he has to do is throw a no look pass near the backboard and some high flyer grabs it and slams it and Kidd looks like a genius.

Yes, he's a decent defender, good rebounder, and great passer. And he's he's terrific at controlling tempo. He's wonderful. but put him in a controlled half court game with guys who can't jump or shoot, as we have here, and he'd be as lost as Marbury.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> In Phoenix he was always the next *emerging* great PG, but still considered second to the likes of Payton and Stockton.


In Phoenix Kidd was an All-NBA First teamer, while Payton and Stockton were on the downend of their career. Kidd replaced Payton on the All-Defensive First team while in Phoenix too.

Maybe you are talking about his Dallas days.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I don't thnk you need a superstar big man to win it all. You DO need to have guys that can board and defend, though. Defending and scoring..thats all there is. Where it comes from doesn't matter. Being better at it than the other guys is what makes the difference. Knicks played the Spurs tough without Ewing but they were offensively challenged and didn't board well.

Take away Ewing's offense against the Rockets and add Kobe's and the Knicks win going away. Shaq doesn't win without Kobe and Hakeem needed help too. Just gimme some dependable "o" and in your face "d" and we'll win . Unfortunately, we have neither.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> I don't thnk you need a superstar big man to win it all


Alfa,history,or recent history certainly disagrees with you...the last team to win it all without a great big man was MJ and the Bulls....

other than that its been a steady diet of big men....Dream,Shaq,Duncan and the Admiral..

If you are right,the Pistons look to have the best shot....But until then,its the Big mans world


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

it's all a very complicated equation though, this notion of "building around" a player. Let's face it, virtually all the teams that win it all are good teams. Most not only have two or three all-stars, most have one or two Hall of Famers. So even the best big men need help.

But the build around thing indicates to me a certain mentality that you can drop a guy anywhere and the team will become decent. Pierce surrounded by crap isn't nearly as good as Duncan or Shaq with crap, but all need good help to be really good. I just think with the dominant big man you get your team off to a faster start than with a dominant small guy. For instance, Francis needs Yao to be good more than Yao needs Francis. Malone did as much to make Stockton great as Stockton did for Malone. I'd even go so far as to say Oscar and Magic needed Kareem to win more than he needed them.

None of this is provable of course, and various types of teams have won. The Bulls were driven by the 2 and 3 position, the Pistons by the 1 and 2. But they are the exceptions to the rule. The rule is still to start with a great big man and build around that.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> In Phoenix Kidd was an All-NBA First teamer, while Payton and Stockton were on the downend of their career. Kidd replaced Payton on the All-Defensive First team while in Phoenix too.
> ...


Be that as it may, my point remains, Kidd is the beneficiary of being the right guy in the right system. He's better now than he was in Phoenix because of the chemistry of this team.

And were Kidd here, Shadon would not become a good shooter, better ballhandler and decision maker, or greater leaper, playing with Kidd. KT's finger wouldn't magically heal. TT wouldn't become Mr consistent with his shot. This wouldn't become a running team.

When Marbury first got here Houston was playing, VH and Doleac and KT were all hitting their shots, and Marbury's ball distribution looked brilliant. Even Hardaway looked slick out there. Marbury was going to drop his scorers mentality and become a distributer.

Now the shooters are gone, and Lenny wont even let Marbury try to run with Hardaway, Shandon and TT. He's got him walking the ball up like we are still waiting for 36 year old Patrick in his lead knee pads to lumber up the court. It's really emasculating Marbury and turning him into Eisley. he's got to either try to chuck the moment he's not doubled, or drive into traffic to put up a circus shot. I don't get it. This offense is so structured into a predictable halfcourt game, yet Lenny's virtually dropped screen and rolls. There is nothing happening out there. They can double Marbury with impunity. 

It would be the same if Kidd were here, possibly even worse, because instead of doubling on him they'd double on TT and force Kidd to have to beat you with his shot, which is an even lower probability proposition. When you don't have the scorers to pass to it's hard to be a great PG.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> When is the last time Knick fans had something positive to say about Rashidi?


Well, Rashidi, I have certainly agreed with you before and have said that you were right. Remember the thread about Jeff McInnis and the Cavs? I supported you there, want me to find a link for it? And once again you are avoiding the question, can't you just answer it?


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

According to history most championship teams have quality bigmen leading the way, or at least contributing a lot. The Bulls were probably the only exception. The Bad Boys had Bill Lambier (sp) at least. The main reason the East is inferior to the West right now is the lack of quality bigmen compared to the West.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

What about the 80's Lakers? Or the Celts? Lakers were made by a big PG, and a solid supporting cast. Very good sf...role player pf...post player past his prime but serviceable..and a good shooting guard. No dominant post player there. Celtics were led by a great all around player in Bird, but not your typical big guy. Parish was not the driving force..neither was McHale but they were both absolutely neccessary as was the backcourt. Some of the teams that made it to the finals had no real great big guy either. Portland...Phoenix....NJ....Indiana. A big guy is simply not neccessary but somebody with GREATNESS is.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> What about the 80's Lakers? Or the Celts?


alfa,kareem was stll formidable very late in his career,and parrish was a great big man...plus,you are talking about two of the all time great teams with some very special players...

i think you are really underestimating the "supporting"cast...do you realise kevin mchale,robert parrish and worthy are 3 of the greatest 50 players in nba history???


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Right, the Bulls are the only exception. Bird/ McHale/ Parrish is one of the great front courts of all time. And Bird could have easily played PF if the Celtics had a lesser PF and an able SF. 

You certainly can't say the Lakers were built around Magic, they won the titel the year before he arrived with Kareem as the finals MVP. The year Magic arrived he was the season and finals MVP, but the Lakers won again the nexyt year with Worthy as MVP.

Maybe one could cite the Pistons, as they were so backcourt driven, but its hard to say they were built around Isiah. They aquired Dumars and Laimbeer in short succession after Isiah was drafted, and a front court of Dantly/Aguirre/Mahorn/Rodman/Laimbeer, is noting to sneeze at.

Sure, any conglomeration of greatness is capable of winning, but if you were building a team from scratch, like the Bobcats, and they could take either the best bigman, say Duncan, Shaq or Garnett, or the best little man, say Kidd, Kobe, or McGrady, odds are they'd go big and you would too.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Greatness is what counts..not size. Duncan, KG, and Shaq are all indefensible and capable of multifaceted domination,,,as are Kobe, and Tmac, and His Airness(past). Pick your superstar and fill in the blanks with capable players. Don't disagree about the Celts frontline, but at the point Magic comes to the Lakers..they don't win without him, but they did win without Jabbar. I think we mostly agree.

I'll take Shaq...or Kobe...or any of the other top 5 or 6 players...and would love to try to build aroound any of them.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> as are Kobe, and Tmac, and His Airness(past).


I don't think you can build a team around any shooting guard now that zone defenses are back. If zones were legal, it probably would have affected Chicago greatly. They essentially had three SFs (Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc). Jordan operated in the post more than Kobe and McGrady, which would soften the blow, but I do think it would have put Chicago's two threepeats into question. If zones were allowed, I think Utah probably would have beaten the Bulls at least once (the first time). Stockton/Hornacek/Russell/Anderson in front of Malone and Ostertag would have been built for the zone.

The Spurs won last year because they stopped Kobe with a zone using 3 good perimeter defenders (Bowen, Ginobili, and Jackson). Teams stopped McGrady this year by zoning him, and Iverson has not been as effective since zones were brought back.

The Magic were built around McGrady last year and were 8th in the east, equivalent to like 12th in the west. Garnett had a similar supporting cast and took them to 4th in the west. KG basically had Wally for half a season, and Troy Hudson. McGrady had Darrell Armstrong, Drew Gooden, Gordan Giricek, Pat Garrity. Similar rosters, but KG got a lot more out of his team.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> 
> I think we mostly agree.
> 
> I'll take Shaq...or Kobe...or any of the other top 5 or 6 players...and would love to try to build aroound any of them.


We do mostly agree, we just disagree by degree. For instance, drop any of those players on any team and you make it better. And I'd love the good fortune to build around any of them.

But given the choice my order would be:

Duncan 
Garnett
Shaq (demoted to third, or even lower, for the long term because of future health and full-season commitment issues. Though for one season only he might be number one)
Kobe
McGrady

Just for fun, what would be your order?


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Flip-flop Duncan and Garnett. I think he has passed Tim. The same on all the others.

And Rashidi...the zone would never have stopped the Bulls. They were too smart and moved the ball too well. Kerr might have had 30/game if they concentrated on Jordan and Pippen with a zone. 
Lakers got beat because Shaq was hurtin and they lacked a bonafide long range bomber.... and ball movement.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I'll take my chances with Kerr over Jordan.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

If you depended on Kerr shooting less than 40% from 3 while getting open looks because of everyone packing a zone around Jordan and Pippen(both great passers), you'd lose most of the time. Think back against the Knicks...Kerr hit the game winner in just that scenario.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

keep in mind,someone shooting 40% from 3 is the equivalant of shooting 60% from 2 point land


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Oh, I know...and thats my point. Even in the NBA you can't zone teams with great shooters. Show the old celtics a zone and they break all sorts of records for scoring.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> I'll take my chances with Kerr over Jordan.


Curious statement, care to back it up?


----------

