# Marbury hate



## Fordy74 (May 22, 2002)

Steph FINALLY has a bunch of young and gifted athletes that can run with him. Q,Nate, D Lee, Frye, Crawford, Ariza etc.. Its way too early for people to talk about Isiahs choice to bring Steph here as a bust and bad idea. Lets see a years worth of Steph to FRYE and Steph to Nate-Rob alley-oops and than judge Marburys performance with the Knicks. I'm thrilled for Steph to finally have someone other than just Trevor Ariza who can keep up with him. So lay off Marbury and Isiah and lets see what happens this season.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

People are giving Marbury a hard time because hasn't ever had a team do something major. He's never proven to be a winning PG but his numbers have been great, which is were his critics come in. I would give him this year to do what he can, but I wouldn't be against moving him if the right guy came around. I think Crawford might be able to run this team.


----------



## Big B (Jun 27, 2005)

Ive been readin posts on this forum for awhile now, but never felt like postin much. But the hate on Starbury is incredible high for some reason. Its not just this forum, but some of my die hard knicks fan friends hate on him too. I just dont see how you can fault the guy. Last season he avg. 22 points a game. But he also put out 8 asst a game. With those numbers, there's no way you can fault Starbury because he brings it every night. So its definently not Starbury's fault that the knicks have been headin downward the past few seasons, its the guys that surround him on the team.


----------



## The_Black_Pinoy (Jul 6, 2005)

Big B said:


> Ive been readin posts on this forum for awhile now, but never felt like postin much. But the hate on Starbury is incredible high for some reason. Its not just this forum, but some of my die hard knicks fan friends hate on him too. I just dont see how you can fault the guy. Last season he avg. 22 points a game. But he also put out 8 asst a game. With those numbers, there's no way you can fault Starbury because he brings it every night. So its definently not Starbury's fault that the knicks have been headin downward the past few seasons, its the guys that surround him on the team.



I agree its not his fault, It's Tim Thomas' fault we were doing fine before he came. We beat freaking Indiana for god sakes. After that trade the knicks sudden spark of life died.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

guys like Marbury and Franchise have their goods and their bads. Both want to dominate the ball too much, and while they put up stats, their teams dont ever become contenders. If you need a star to draw fans and put points on the board. These guys are good. Otherwise they need to learn to be floor generals. Franchise can make a successful switch to the two guard. But i dont think that would work for Marbury. Q is going to want to launch threes, when he should be posting up smaller players, a la Allan Houston. Marbury is going to want to dominate the ball, and crawford is a player that likes it in his hands as well. You have some good pieces (like q and jamal) but you dont have the right point guard for them. Andre Miller or Tinsley would be a good fit. Not Marbury.


----------



## Big B (Jun 27, 2005)

The_Black_Pinoy said:


> I agree its not his fault, It's Tim Thomas' fault we were doing fine before he came. We beat freaking Indiana for god sakes. After that trade the knicks sudden spark of life died.


You're absolutely right about that. Two years ago, the knicks were on a good roll with Van Horn and were lookin at a solid seed in the playoffs, maybe like a 5. I dont know why Isiah made that trade for Tim Thomas, ever since then, we've been on a downward spiral. :curse:


----------



## ERAFF (Jun 27, 2005)

"the hate on Starbury is incredible high for some reason. Its not just this forum, but some of my die hard knicks fan friends hate on him too. I just dont see how you can fault the guy"

When the team wins, the big star gets cheers---when the team loses the big star gets blamed----it comes with the $20 mil salary


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

marbury doesnt dominate the ball. watch some games and see how many times he swings to the wing and absolutely nothing happens. he only has the ball cause we dont have any damn plays and they give it to him cause they dont know what to do.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

PennyHardaway said:


> marbury doesnt dominate the ball. watch some games and see how many times he swings to the wing and absolutely nothing happens. he only has the ball cause we dont have any damn plays and they give it to him cause they dont know what to do.


so if we replaced him with say steve nash. you still think you can use that excuse?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Big B said:


> You're absolutely right about that. Two years ago, the knicks were on a good roll with Van Horn and were lookin at a solid seed in the playoffs, maybe like a 5. I dont know why Isiah made that trade for Tim Thomas, ever since then, we've been on a downward spiral. :curse:


The reason we traded Van Horn is because MARBURY buried the axe in his back..He didnt like him on the nets and he got him out of NY...

marburys skill are not in question..Its marbury the leader that IS questioned


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

nbanoitall said:


> so if we replaced him with say steve nash. you still think you can use that excuse?



Marbiry penetrates with the intent on scoring..he kicks it out as a last resort...Nash penetrates looking to deal and shoots as a last resort


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Save your breath, Truth....*

The superstarbury lovers focus on his numbers without qualifying them. They'll never change, and when Marbury retires a non-winner they'll moan about how he had bad teamates...coachs..a system, etc. Every once in a while you'll also hear how "he brings it" every night. Bullcrap. Real players bring the effort both ends of the floor...all the time. SM loafs on d and brings effort when he has the ball....ever see him make any hard cuts without the ball? Nope. Set a pick? Nope. Pick up his teamates and make them better? Haha....nope. It ain't hate...it's called being objective. He'll change my mind when he changes his game to one that wins.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

I think this is Steph's year to shine, because LB will be joining the helm. This is Steph's chance to prove to the haters that he can be a leader. I expect LB to give him the Iverson treatment and make him into a winner. If Steph gets out the 1st round will the hate diminish? Probably not, but I will like to see a more focus and mature Steph willing and able to sacrafice the PG position and switch to the 2 guard, if that is what LB wants. I'll be rooting for him to prove to the haters that they are wrong.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Set your sights low enough?*

Winning the 1st round series is some kind of great accomplishment? Hell, no, I won't be happy. And Brown made AI into a winner? Nope. They got to the finals in a very weak conference in a freak type year only to get absolutely dusted. AI is another one of those guys whose game is not suited to winning when he has to put up big numbers. One difference is that AI plays hard ALL the time and is willing to do what it takes. You forget that LB had Marbury on the Olympic team and did everything he could to replace him. Read his comments about Marbury (they are thinly veiled). He hates his game. Marbury talks the talk but so far has not walked the walk.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Can Steph walk the walk if he hasn't played a single game under Coach Brown in a Knick uniform? NO...so let's just wait and see. Getting out of the 1st round is no big accomplishment...but this particular thread is about folks hating Steph. So in that retrospect folks can't use that excuse anymore if he does happen to get out of the 1st round. I'm aware of Coach Brown's comments about Steph and he also made comments about Lebron, Amare and Melo. It didn't seem to alter his decision in trying to coach the Cavs and the Knicks now did it?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the marbury hate is basically unjustified.

that he has never won a playoff series is a weak counter, he has never had the kind of players on his team to win a playoff series.

my belief is that any team in which steph is the best player wont be a successful one...unless its so stocked with talent and complimentary players it doesn't matter.

truthfully the same is for any point guard not named magic johnson or oscar robertson. and magic has never been on a team that wasn't stocked with talent.

would nash ever be past the 1st round without dirk , finley or an all-nba player in amare?

could zeke in his prime get past the 1st round with the same talent ...history says he couldn't he had to wait for that talent to mature and then they rose up.

kidd needed a host of players perfectly suited for his game to get to the finals before that he was the best player on a few suns teams that couldn't get past the 1st round even if they got good matchups winning in the range of 50 games.

do the current knicks apply?

i think most would agree with me and say no , but that its young and has the potential to down the road with some tweaking and maturing.

last year's knicks surely didn't.

so i wonder how people judge the guy a loser if he's never been in a position that he should have won.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*That response is weak...*

Winning is everything. I agree with only one thing you said and that is that no team will win with SM being the best player. Other than that, I disagree. Winning the first round is not an accomplishment of ANY significance. If he beats a lousy team, he is still a loser. He needs to be one of the main reasons a team wins and advances in the playoffs, and so far that has never happened. There are plenty of PG's that could be just as effective at helping the Knicks win...most for far less money and aggrevation. If you want to see how people feel, why don't you start a thread asking the people to rate PGs 1-10. What would be really revealing is if other teams fans also got to rate. Bet you'd be suprised.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: That response is weak...*



alphadog said:


> Winning is everything. I agree with only one thing you said and that is that no team will win with SM being the best player. Other than that, I disagree. Winning the first round is not an accomplishment of ANY significance. If he beats a lousy team, he is still a loser. He needs to be one of the main reasons a team wins and advances in the playoffs, and so far that has never happened. There are plenty of PG's that could be just as effective at helping the Knicks win...most for far less money and aggrevation. If you want to see how people feel, why don't you start a thread asking the people to rate PGs 1-10. What would be really revealing is if other teams fans also got to rate. Bet you'd be suprised.


most people overrate the players on their team and the players _they_ personally like.

by that scale since marbury is one of the most disliked players in the league i would expect him to be very much underrated. That doesn't change his actual value , he is a knick and in new york he is generally loved, and occasionally hated.

marbury even in a bad year(for him) is a top 5 point guard.


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

If Winning is Everything then Tell me what has Kobe-Pippen-McGrady-LeBron ever won ???? 


Kobe as the Best player on hgis team WILL NEVER MAKE THE PLAYOFFS unless he has 2 All-Stars to play with & so far History has Proven that

Pippen Played with 2 of the Best Players at there positions of All-Time still in there Prime & 1 of them already lead a team to back to back titles & the other lead a team to the Finals . Yet when pippen go there they never even got past the 2nd round


McGrady has finally gotten a team to play with & A All-Star to boot in Yao Ming & He's still never gotten pass the 1st round of the Playoffs

LeBron is a loser as well hear he has a top 5 Center , on of the Better rebounders in the game & playing in the East with The Pacers with a death nail in there season yet they still miss the playoffs





I guese Alphie your the Type that sees players like Horry-Kerr-Salley-HUnter & others like that who are such great Winners that no matter where they go a Championship follows


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

This whole concept of Marbury hate is a bunch of BS designed to deflect any criticism, no matter how warranted. People make brilliant assessments of Marbury's flaws, here and elsewhere, on a near daily basis, only for his apostles to ignore them and accuse the critics of "blind" hate. If we just call the hate "criticism", which is what it really is, do his supporters really want to defend what they are actually saying: that Marbury is beyond criticism? 

I'd love to see you defend that one. And no one will try. After the default explanation that hate is blind, the other default explanation is "we know he has flaws, but so what, so does everyone." Which leaves us to understand that with Marbury it's okay to know he has flaws, but if you discuss them and how they impact the team you're labeled a blind hater.

Now the common defense of Marbury usually entails something about 20/8 stats, some half baked comparison to Oscar who was career averaging around 30/11 at Marbury's age, and something about bad teams. 

Okay, fine, without specifically refuting that, what I'd like to understand is how that distinguishes him from other guys who I see Knick fans, many of whom are Marbury's biggest supporters, disparage on Knicks boards daily. Specifically SAR (career 20/8) Walker (career 20/8) and Steve Francis (career 20/6.5/6). I could even add in a guy like Stackhouse, who when allowed to run wild on a bad team had a 30/5/4 season.

I never see Knicks fans lunging to deflect "hate" from those guys, so what exactly differentiates Steph from them? Steph is a good player, as are they. If we could agree on that we'd all get along fine, but somehow because Steph is from Brooklyn, and is a Knick, and is a good PG, which we haven't had in some years, Steph gets anointed to a near deity status among mere mortals like them.

And his glamor stats not withstanding, does it matter that Steph will make around *19M per season* over the remaining 4 years of his contract? That his teammates often hate him and coaches want him traded? That he told Wilkens to stuff his criticisms of Steph's defense; that Phil Jackson sees him as having a role off the bench on his team; that coach Brown reportedly wanted STeph booted from the Olympic team; or that both Bob Cousy and Coach Of The Year, D'Antoni, don't even view Steph as a point guard? Does any of that factor in with his Walker-like stats?

Jeez, if Marbury were like Billips, (respected his coach and teammates, made 6M/per, and was considered but one of an ensemble) he wouldn't be so polarizing. But that's not what we have here. So we divide ourselves around Steph, like seemingly all his teams have done before.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

truth said:


> Marbiry penetrates with the intent on scoring..he kicks it out as a last resort...Nash penetrates looking to deal and shoots as a last resort


and one was the mvp, and the other was well, a guy the floats from team to team and hasnt been able to mesh and become a contender.

you just explained the difference between the two guards. New York needs a Steve Nash or Andre Miller. Not a Marbury. I love how you didnt answer my question. you just defined what the players are. silence is acceptance


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> This whole concept of Marbury hate is a bunch of BS designed to deflect any criticism, no matter how warranted. People make brilliant assessments of Marbury's flaws, here and elsewhere, on a near daily basis, only for his apostles to ignore them and accuse the critics of "blind" hate. If we just call the hate "criticism", which is what it really is, do his supporters really want to defend what they are actually saying: that Marbury is beyond criticism?
> 
> I'd love to see you defend that one. And no one will try. After the default explanation that hate is blind, the other default explanation is "we know he has flaws, but so what, so does everyone." Which leaves us to understand that with Marbury it's okay to know he has flaws, but if you discuss them and how they impact the team you're labeled a blind hater.
> 
> ...


the bolded part i find to be important.

why does it matter how much he makes ?

was he supposed to turn down the money? 

are the knicks in a position cap wise if he made less money it would affected their season.

his agent negotiated it (or since it was the max he may not even have needed an agent) and the team agreed to it.

it comes off as jealousy and well "blind hate" to disparage a man because of how much money he makes.

marbury is not billups until 3 years ago billups was one of the biggest draft blunder in the past 15 years, unable to hold onto starting jobs anywhere , needing terrell brandon to get hurt and basically have his career over and then t'wolves to have no choice but to let him run the team(the twolves by the way were 30 and 10 when brandon and went down , finished 21-21 with billups)

marbury is better than billups , but billups has melded his game around far superior talent, and that is to his credit(remember he was drafted 3rd just like marbury he is supposed to have similar talent)....on bad teams billups in his history could not even be a quality player, the book isn't closed on him just being a guy who his team may cover his weaknesses, although it does look like he is better than that. many attribute billup's rise to larry brwon how much was LB and how much wasn't can be determined very soon, the season before LB billups was somewhat looked down upon for avg. 3.9 ast. as a starting pg.....something i doubt would be so easily overlooked for marbury if he did it 2 weeks let alone for a season.

bob cousy says there are basically 3 point guards in the whole nba , nash kidd and tinsley...basically cousy has at great length has shown that his view of a point guard is 1st and foremost pass 1st...that is not marbury ...
got alink to that phil jackson quote? ...i doubt it for a couple of reasons 1, its foolish the man started derek fisher, bj armstrong, brian shaw, ron harper and john paxson at point guard, in his 12 or so years as an nba head coach. And phil jackson is shrewd enough not to ever have him quoted as saying such a thing about a player. just like he was supposedly supposed to have said Tim thomas was "trash" was never heard from him ...just attributed to him by another person and then that was quoted and taken as gospel, just about the flimsiest thing imaginable. there is no such quote.

marbury is absolutely not beyond criticism and there is plenty to say negative about him, but to hold him out the fire for not leading a clearly substandard team to a title or title contention is absurd.

he's good , very good in fact but he is no legend he is not in the category that his presence on the roster is an automatic 40 wins and at least 8th in your conference...of which there are a handful of such players.

what i dont get is the need to blame him for everything wrong with the knicks when they weren't even in the playoffs before he got there. any halfway intelligent fan can see the team last year was not a playoff team.H20 was hurt after the all star break they didn't have a center on the roster.

i actually think the season marbury had was admirable. he was on bad knees all season , but to keep the team afloat had to play heavy min. shot the ball very well and kept people involved, outside of crawford and kurt no one was even close to be consistently able to be counted on all season. where was houston the top scorer ? Tim thomas? nazr?

look at the bottom 3 teams in east in the playoffs the pacers, nets and 76ers, look at what the guys who weren't stars did.

the pacers are basically the deepest team in the nba without artest they still had o'neal, tinsley, sjax and miller. 

the nets in addition to kidd had vince carter and kristic ...and then got a late boost from RJ

the 76ers had webber who was much maligned in his time in was still a better player than any knick not named marbury...and then dalembert, korver, Iguodala, these guy played well all season long .

the knicks should have been in their range of wins but they weren't , H2o never came back well , crawford got hurt and in january without a healthy houston or crawford , the team nosedived.

was it marbury's fault without healthy 2 guards TT avg. 9 points on 33% shooting in the month of january ...in the games he played , he missed about 6 games that month too.

that nazr's point and rebounds dropped by 2 apiece in jan. from dec. and went from shooting 52& to 47%.

did you notice anyone else trying to step up in january when the team needed it most , i didn't

with the injuries to others it was on these guys to step up , but intead they played worse, marbury actually did step up , he came into jan. as the player of the week...so obviously at the time the nba agreed that he was doing just fine . with other guys faultering he shot better and scored more than he had the previous month, something the team need but didn't get from others.

the truth is marbury was barely holding that team up but he cant do it alone, he was 9th in +/- margin at +12 per 48 minutes , which is a nice way of saying the team absolutely falls apart when he isn't on the floor , making it extremely important he play as much as possible.

with all that was wrong with the roster they were maybe 6 or 7 games out of the playoffs at the close of the season...something larry brown could probably fix with in game coaching alone and an improvement in gametime preperation for which he is known for as well as teaching.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the bolded part i find to be important.
> 
> why does it matter how much he makes ?
> 
> ...


I assume that the modern educated fan has some knowledge about player's salary, team payroll, and how those relate in a basic way the CBA and to a team's financial flexibility. Now I don't mean to be offensive, but based upon your response, I suspect one or both of two things: A) that doesn't apply to you, and you just root for whoever wears orange and blue, or B) that you think Marbury is so damn good we shouldn't give a thought to how much he makes, what we gave up for him, and how that relates to our future options. 

And it appears you're totally misconstruing my intended context. You're speaking as though I made his salary a _character_ issue. Not at all. But if you've been around a while you know how fans feel about Allan Houston and his contract. Nice complimentary player, but no leader, no franchise player, not someone you give $100M to and kill your flexibility for. 

Well we did it all over again with Marbury. The Knicks were set to dump huge amounts of salary before him, and we are poised to again, and if his contract were dispersed we could still field a competitive team while building thru the draft, and making room for a huge under-the-cap free agency coup in a couple of years for someone like Lebron, Bosh, Yao, Wade, Carmelo, Amare, etc. But we can't with him on the books.

My approach to rebuilding this squad would be to do virtually everything Isiah has done other than Marbury. We should be taking flyers on young guys with reasonable contracts, building through the draft, and lastly, after a solid young core is in place, adding high priced "star" players as a finishing piece. For reference look at Phoenix with Nash (after Marion, JJ, and Amare), or Denver with K-Mart (after Camby, Nene, and Carmelo). The solid inexpensive core was in place from the draft before blowing the cap on the "stars" and pushing for immediate playoff spots.

With Marbury we went in reverse order. We got our expensive cap-buster, lottery-preventer, first and now we're trying to add pieces around him, but his presence is in the way of us dropping payroll for a FA, or scoring high in the draft (in theory. However we saw how a team divided could surprise us for the worse, hence Frye at #8). It's a dumb way to rebuild a franchise that had virtually ZERO core before Marbury was added.

I like signing guys like Crawford, Q, Malik, JYD, and developing guys like Frye, Sweets, Ariza, Nate and Lee. If you look at hoopshype and view our contracts, you could basically look at that list from the top down and see the players in sequence of worth to us - in REVERSE order! Houston, Marbury, Penny, TT, Mo... those guys are waaay overpaid for what they deliver, and bad for our rebuild. Anyone below them are fair value for their current talent, with huge upside in the event of improvement. I just see no reason to bloat our payroll all over agian just when we were coming tot he end of a loong dark tunnel for a player of Marbury's caliber. For Duncan or KG? Sure. For Marbury, Francis, Walker, SAR, etc? No thanks. Been there, done that.



> marbury is better than billups ,


Define "better". Billips is a better defender, decision maker and clutch performer. He's a finals MVP and his teamates and coach love him. I'd bet plenty that Larry Brown would have preferred him leading the '04 Olympic team to Marbury. And all that comes for $6M/yr and payroll flexibility.




> got alink to that phil jackson quote? ...i doubt it for a couple of reasons 1, its foolish the man started derek fisher, bj armstrong, brian shaw, ron harper and john paxson at point guard, in his 12 or so years as an nba head coach. And phil jackson is shrewd enough not to ever have him quoted as saying such a thing about a player. just like he was supposedly supposed to have said Tim thomas was "trash" was never heard from him ...just attributed to him by another person and then that was quoted and taken as gospel, just about the flimsiest thing imaginable. there is no such quote.


I used to have it but lost it in a computer crash. But Truth and others saw it earlier this spring and can attest to it. Now it's true that it did not come directly from Phil, but it came from his best friend and biographer, Charley Rosen, when Phil was considering the NY job. If there is one person who would know Phil's thoughts on the Knicks it would be Charley Rosen.



> marbury is absolutely not beyond criticism and there is plenty to say negative about him, but to hold him out the fire for not leading a clearly substandard team to a title or title contention is absurd.


Agreed. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the "plenty to say negative about him" which you theoretically concede to but then disallow in practice.




> with all that was wrong with the roster they were maybe 6 or 7 games out of the playoffs at the close of the season...something larry brown could probably fix with in game coaching alone and an improvement in gametime preperation for which he is known for as well as teaching.


That's all well and good, but some of us who complain about him do so because we want more than to eeek into the playoffs. We are looking to build a serious contender, and we wonder if Marbury is the type of guy you want to make a cornerstone of the franchise and pay over 20M a year to. I say not.

I look at it this way, on Marbury's good qualities we achieved a 16-13 record (through the worst of TT's production). Then the team fractured and we went 17- 36 on the virtue of his bad qualities. There are a whole host of lesser talents with better attitudes at cheaper price tags who can give you 33 wins.

But if you want a guy who can give you bursts of excellence amid bursts of petulance, and hopefully with the help of one of the best coaches ever help you claw into the playoffs, he's more then ample. But then so too would be Francis, or Walker or SAR, or Crawford, or Nate?, or...


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

Those are a lot of words. 

Basketball Players For Dumbies

Pictogram.

Tinsley:biggrin: 
Andre Miller :biggrin: 
Steve Nash :biggrin: 

Stephon Marbury:evil: is the devil. My Momma said Stephon Marbury is the devil. -Adam Sandler
Marbury is a freakin pawn in a chess game. You want your team to get to the next level? Trade his ***. Which is exactly what New York is trying to do.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Hmmm Earth to nbanoitall...when Andre Miller gets your team to the next level...then maybe your point will hold some weight. :laugh:


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Oak...*

Very well done. Grinch, you did a whole bunch of typing without saying much...just like Quills. First Quills...Lebron is in the league 2 years and is 20 years old. You really think he shoould be used to support your case? Dumb. Kobe has a couple of rings in case you missed it. Yes, Shaq was the man but without Kobe they go nowhere, either. Pippen? Are you unconscious? He was the 2nd most important guy on the Bulls teams. McGrady is far better than Marbury and is a premier defensive player. There's not one aspect of his game that isn't superior to Marbury. I gave you facts...what you gave is wild speculation unjustifiable statements. Peace out.

Grinch...Maybe Marbury has more talent than Billups but he is not a better player in many regards...plus the fact that Billups HAS evolved his game when Marbury has only talked about it makes him different. I could care less about his money and neither does anyone else...IF HE EARNS IT. Nobody cares what KG makes...or Duncan...or Shaq..or what Jordan or Bird made. If you're a proffessional athlete and you makes millions of bucks a year, you are most definately going to be held accountable by the fans..and rightfully so. I'll give you just a little Bball lesson here as well. You asked if Marbury is(was) resonsible for the lower shooting % for some players (TT)...the answer is hell yes, at leasst to a significant degree. The PG IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING GUYS THE BALL IN THE RIGHT PLACES AT THE RIGHT TIMES...PERIOD. He does not get guys easy looks, ergo the shooting % drop.


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

I Puprsosefully gave Wild Speculation since that all people do about Marbury .

Dont bring up numbers I never one brought up numbers in a Marbury Argument . I Always grade Game against Game , unless it's to be fisticeus like before . 



The point was trying to make with Kobes'LBJs & McGradeys is that no player is Ammuned at being Called a Loser if a team is not built right & the FACT of the Matters every team Marbury was on since the Wolves has not been built right for him . you can also make a case that his Teams have been more Inconcived built around him more so than any star player in mordern history . So now Marbury has to be Responsible to make every player on the 15 man roster better . When every other player who's percived to be a Star has had a better team built around them ?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> I assume that the modern educated fan has some knowledge about player's salary, team payroll, and how those relate in a basic way the CBA and to a team's financial flexibility. Now I don't mean to be offensive, but based upon your response, I suspect one or both of two things: A) that doesn't apply to you, and you just root for whoever wears orange and blue, or B) that you think Marbury is so damn good we shouldn't give a thought to how much he makes, what we gave up for him, and how that relates to our future options.
> 
> And it appears you're totally misconstruing my intended context. You're speaking as though I made his salary a _character_ issue. Not at all. But if you've been around a while you know how fans feel about Allan Houston and his contract. Nice complimentary player, but no leader, no franchise player, not someone you give $100M to and kill your flexibility for.
> 
> ...


you have actually done something i consider silly, you have made a game assessment of marbury based on how much he makes.

thats not an issue for marbury , or a valid criticism.

that may be a valid point against I.Thomas since he brought him in at that price....but marbury signed a deal and thats all there is to it. crying about the bang for your buck to me is crying plain and simple , he's not getting a pay cut , and no is asking him to do it. comparing him to players who make less and you consider very good means nothing in the scheme of things because those players aren't knicks and i'm pretty sure if a guy like billups was a free agent right now he'd take home next season more than the 6 mil. so if anything the fact that he is a bargain speaks of his lack of capitalizing on himself.

if you thought he had a skill that wasn't up to par that is something to bring up.i think marbury took it easy on defense , but it is a skill he has. i am sure you saw his defense when zeke challenged him on it, but i also think 40 min. a game being the primary weapon and really the only consistent weapon and playing some defense is not something he can do on bad knees which he never got a chance to rest from the summer. i also think billups playing defense with the wallaces, t.prince and larry brown as his coach helps him , while being on an offensively diverse team while not having to be overburdened with min. or responsibilty helps him more than you are willing to admit...and even then he isn't exactly a stopper, he got into his share of foul trouble especially early in the season trying to defend

you also critic things by way of hearsay. by what someone was supposed to have said, by way of someone else, and expect it to be fact. to me that is typing with nothing behind it. charley rosen is not phil jackson, 

have you seen any on court acts of petulance?

if you have you have kept it to yourself because i haven't seen an example from you.

charley rosen has said somethings...has anyone seen phil confirm these things...do you think the entire basketball media fell asleep at the wheel and failed to ask phil?

apparently you must because you have taken hearsay as gospel.

marbury isn't antione walker, abdur rahim or francis his talents an situations were different.

walker and SAR in today's market are MLE talents accoring to this summer's free agency market , the comparisons end there. francis is very good but he may have been miscast as a pg in the nba he has sinced embraced the 2, who knows how that turns out.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

This is probably my last round with you Grinch. I participate on another board in addition tot his one and after dozens of Marbury discussions one begins to recognize certain archetypes. You are the kinda guy that wants to dumb it down and eliminate all forms of criticisms thru excuses without every justifying what he does thats so right, other than empty, unqualified stats. It gets boring fast.



Da Grinch said:


> you have actually done something i consider silly, *you have made a game assessment of marbury based on how much he makes.
> 
> thats not an issue for marbury , or a valid criticism.*
> 
> that may be a valid point against I.Thomas since he brought him in at that price....but marbury signed a deal and thats all there is to it. crying about the bang for your buck to me is crying plain and simple , he's not getting a pay cut , and no is asking him to do it.


I did no such thing. I happen to factor several components into a player evaluation and price is one of them. Floor play is something else. Attitude, flexibility, effort, chemistry, history, leadership, etc are all components. YOU just happened to harp on the fact I don't think the *totality* of Marbury justifies his enormous, Allan Houston-like, cap busting, free agent preventing contract.

Now obviously I need to enunciate my criticism of his floor game too. Why, I don't know, since I've done it in other threads, as has Alpha and others, and you yourself acknowledge there are many issues with Marbury (only in the abstract of course, but when people articulate them you cry foul.)

First off I don't believe that since his dual ankle operations he is the same athlete he once was. He seems reduced in his baseline to baseline speed and diminished in his ability to maintain an uptempo pace. His lateral speed isn't all that great though his biggest weakness on D is his unwillingness to fight over screens (which is odd as he does not shy from contact in the lane.) So footspeed, hops and endurance appear diminished. 

Combine this with the fact that he doesn't advance the ball early in the possession via passes and you have almost no easy bucket fast break points. And speaking of not giving up the rock early, what's the point of having a decent ballhandling combo guards like Crawford if the only time he's all owed to ball handle is when Steph is benched for a fourth quarter?

(And let me diverge here and mention that Crawford did very good work in some of those 4th quarter situation with Marbury on the bench. Herb even said "you'll be seeing a lot more of that too", but then he and Isiah had a sit down and Herb made a retraction saying he was taken out of context, and Marbury is our only PG. That's not healthy, that's Marbury and Isiah dictation terms on the coach, terms I don't consider healthy from the standpoint of floor leadership, but more importantly, coaching leadership, and giving Herb authority and the tools to succeed.

Another similar occasion occurred when the team was looking at game videos and the coaching staff was telling Steph how he was blowing the defensive assignments. Steph would hear none of it, told them their schemes "stink", and they could essentially stick their criticisms in a dark orifice. Lenny said nothing as he didn't feel he had the authority to stand up to or discipline Steph. That's when Isiah told him he was playing like the worst defensive guard in the league, and steph told us he sensed he could be doing more on D.

Steph as kingpin of the team does not work for me. He's not the smartest bulb in the marquee and has demonstrated nothing to have me think he knows more than HOF coach and player Lenny Wilkens. He needs to stuff his ego and learn. And being an example of uncoachability is not what I expect from our franchise player - ever - let alone with a young, vulnerable and impressionable rebuilding team.

And you wonder why we hear reports that several quality coaches don't fancy him...)

He also does not seem to see the floor well at the heightened pace, or really with much movement at all. He appears not to recognize cutters, alley oop opportunities or backdoor moves to the basket. He doesn't rotate to the sides of the court or circle under the basket floor a rear view look at the floor. What you get from Steph is a very mechanical and deliberate frontal attack from the top cusp of the arc and straight down the right side of the lane. Because he doesn't see the court all that well, or like to approach an offense in motion what you usually get from him is a stilted offense where he holds the ball until most motion from the offense is defense is lulled into a near stupor, then he explodes into the paint (he does have good burst speed when going to his right) where he will either finish himself or dish outward and backward. This generally sets up teammate for spot up jumpers, which few teammates excel in. 

The other option of course is the pick-and-roll or pick-and-pop. A big will come out the the arc and screen him, from which he will drive right and can either shoot, penetrate, or pass back to the screener for an open 18 footer. Something Kurt was superb at. For all the complaints about Kurt's lack of penetrating, his FG% was better than many of the premier PFs in the game, including Dirk, Webber, and Jermaine.

While effective in within this small repertoire of plays, the net effect is usually long shot clock possessions (which adds up to less points over the duration of the game) few easy fastbreak buckets, few setups to the bigs going to the rim, few fouls drawn by anyone but him, a stagnant and predictable offense and one that was easily defeated through a trap and/or zone. Is it any wonder our best success came with shooters like Kurt, Van Horn and Doleac? Any wonder the Olympic team was stagnant with weak shooters but tremendous athletes like Iverson, Wade, Amare, Jefferson, Marion, Lebron, etc? Isn't it odd the easy buckets jefferson gets with Kidd, and Marion and Amare get with Nash, and we saw none of that from Steph, in spite of having player two years with Marion and Amare? Stick Nash or Kidd on that team and our boys would have been punishing the rims, instead of struggling to sink 20 footers. And you challenge reports that assert Brown wanted Marbury off the team?

The worst of it was seen in Knicks crunch-time, where we lost buckets full of close games. Both Marbury and JC are supposed to be decision makers (PGs. And a poor decision maker makes a poor PG, point blank. Poor decision makers make bad leaders or any kind, and the PG is the floor leader), but we saw nothing but crunch time confusion between the two. Neither felt comfortable taking late shots (unless JC was 40 feet back with 3 secs on the clock) and both became penetration-shy late in games. Somehow both of them hugged the elbows of the arc and refused to draw contact, rotate, work off screens, create diversion, cut, etc. In other words they failed to position themselves to be assisted, and at the same time they were unable to create for themselves. So we simply watched in awed horror as these guys just stood around and let games expired in indecision. It was frightful.

Anyway, that's some of my floor game critique. The questionable floor vision; the lack of running; the limited halfcourt repertoire;, the lazy defense; the iffy decision making; the stoic, low energy demeanor that is not uplifting; his slow plod on and off the court during timeouts; his always the first player off the court after games with nary a nod of friendship to his teammates or opponents... it all adds up to a terse style of team play.

And all this ignores the Stephyll and Hyde, "I don't know what kind of PG want to be" style of play. Half the game he distributes, the second half he scores. All very formulaic. I wouldn't mind it if both approaches included the same energy from him, but they don't. When he plays in clearly defined modes as a distributor he's very low key, barely breaks a sweat, and provides little decoy/diversion with his shot. Then when he's in scoring mode he's like a man possessed, he's on his toes, bouncing around, sneakers squeaking, and into it. Ever notice though how some of the premier PGs approach the game with consistency of style and effort throughout? Nash and Kidd especially, but also guys like Boykins, Bibby, and Parker, play with consistently high energy, determination and enthusiasm throughout. Not Steph.



> comparing him to players who make less and you consider very good means nothing in the scheme of things because those players aren't knicks


Ever hear of the concept of an opportunity cost? In short it means any time you use resources for one opportunity they are taken away from another thing. If you want to buy a car for $10,000 cash, the car doesn't just cost you that much, it also costs you what that money could be earning elsewhere. With the cap, and with presumably some finite amount Dolan is willing to spend on a failed project, tying up 19M per year in Steph (what his four years remaining at 76M averages out to) limits other things we could be doing with that money. To spend it on Steph, when others could give you similar impact for less, seems downright silly to me.



> and i'm pretty sure if a guy like billups was a free agent right now he'd take home next season more than the 6 mil. so if anything the fact that he is a bargain speaks of his lack of capitalizing on himself.


Oh brother. It speaks to no such thing. Billips was an unrestricted free agent who was obtained with their MLE. It was strictly what the market said he was worth. What it does speak to is the approach taken by the Pistons which is what I advocate for us. They chose to keep their payroll in line by finding good value players. Stackhouse was their "star" and putting up great numbers in a losing cause. They decided to go in a different direction, and because Stack had a good value contract (~5.5M) he was easily tradable, and they went with value again by trading essentially him for Hamilton and Bobby Simmons. Hamilton was carrying a ~2.5M salary.

Do you see the difference from us? Our "star", Steph, makes 19M/yr, and is virtually untradeable now. That's the opposite of financial flexibility and that hinders our ability to change courses should we chose to.

However, guys will upside like Nate, JC and Q, with their reasonable MLE contracts, are right along the Piston's model of value and player development.

My problem is Marbury is still just a guy who's trying to establish himself as an upper echelon player. he's a guy with skills but a shaky identity. IOW, he's still a "potential" player. A guy we hope a coach like Brown can mold into a real star, or winner, for lack of better words. Well in my mind potential guys should come cheap, like for the MLE. Max players should come tested, formed and know who they are and how to go about their business. We don't need max contract projects, and that's what Steph is.



> if you thought he had a skill that wasn't up to par that is something to bring up.i think marbury took it easy on defense , but it is a skill he has. i am sure you saw his defense when zeke challenged him on it, but i also think 40 min. a game being the primary weapon and really the only consistent weapon and playing some defense is not something he can do on bad knees which he never got a chance to rest from the summer. i also think billups playing defense with the wallaces, t.prince and larry brown as his coach helps him , while being on an offensively diverse team while not having to be overburdened with min. or responsibilty helps him more than you are willing to admit...and even then he isn't exactly a stopper, he got into his share of foul trouble especially early in the season trying to defend


Well I hope I better informed you of my thoughts on his skill set. The rest is just the usual excuses based on theories of possibilities. But you've done nothing to establish his worth, or tell me why he is unassailable, or in any way evidence that overpaying him, building around him and catering to his needs serves us.



> you also critic things by way of hearsay. by what someone was supposed to have said, by way of someone else, and expect it to be fact. to me that is typing with nothing behind it. charley rosen is not phil jackson,


Come on, these are published reports that follow steph around from team to team throughout his career. Reports that a condition of Phil coaching the nets (pre lakers) was that Steph be moved. Reports he finds him suitable off the bench in his triangle system (Phil likes heady distributors and good defenders at the point and tall athletes at SG). Acknowledged reports that Steph would not buy into D'Antoni's uptempo offense. Direct quotes from Amare and marion about how grateful they are to have a "real PG" who gives them "easy buckets and does what a PG is supposed to do." Multiple reports that Steph frequented the massage table while others scrimmaged, both in Phoenix and NY. Reports with photos that Steph wrote "all alone" on his sneakers in NJ and no one shed a tear when he was gone. Reports that he didn't want to be "all alone" in minnesota, wanted his NY entourage, didn't want to play second fiddle to KG and requested/forced a trade. Reports that Wilkens did have the authority to discipline him and Wilkens requested he be traded. Reports that Kurt wanted to kick his *** and half the team backed him and then we went 17 and 33, or whatever the record was? Reports that he also clashed with other PFs like KVH and K-Mart. Reports, like Telfair's book, that Steph got KVH traded.

Sheesh dude, it's a legacy in print, not an isolated piece of hearsay. And most of it is backed up by being on his 4th team in 8 years.

So other than blind disbelief, what have you to refute any of it?



> have you seen any on court acts of petulance?
> 
> if you have you have kept it to yourself because i haven't seen an example from you.


No, I see stoic indifference on court which is less then uplifting. Wait till you see Nate to compare it to. And I've seen the net effect of the Marbury sum total on the court, which was many many games of gutless spiritless play by the fractured team as a whole.




> charley rosen has said somethings...has anyone seen phil confirm these things...do you think the entire basketball media fell asleep at the wheel and failed to ask phil?
> 
> apparently you must because you have taken hearsay as gospel.


Goodness gracious. First off there is an etiquette to the league wherein it's very uncommon for coaches of other teams to insult other teams players, but the lips are not so tightly sealed that feelings don't become known. The media did not confirm his thoughts on Steph because he was in New Zealand at the time, Phil does not give a lot of interviews so reporters are pretty soft on him, and if they want something salacious they ask him about Kobe and Shaq. They find his thoughts on them far more interesting than on Steph, though if Phil were to be our coach I'm sure it would have gotten more play.



> marbury isn't antione walker, abdur rahim or francis his talents an situations were different.
> 
> walker and SAR in today's market are MLE talents accoring to this summer's free agency market , the comparisons end there


No kidding they're not the same, but how bout being informative on how you mean they are different.

And Walker's yet to be signed so his value is still unknown. And as Steph is not a FA we really don't know what his current market value is either. What we do know is with his current contract he's virtually unmovable.



> . francis is very good but he may have been miscast as a pg in the nba he has sinced embraced the 2, who knows how that turns out.


Ditto for Steph.

Anyway, I think I'm done here. I know your kind. You see his surface acumen at scoring and passing and therefore think he's a top tier talent in the league, which is only embellished by the fact he's from NY and on our team. Therefore we gotta love him. You know he's flawed but any discussion of his flaws are "unfair". You only care about his stats, but nothing for how his game does or does not integrate with his teamMates, nor about his persona and off court issues with teammates and coaches. And while you are always at the ready with justifications for his lack of success, you really can't demonstrate why he's better than others who put up similarly good stats on bad teams, get bounced around like him, and have significantly less value in the league then Steph does in your mind. Lastly you never even attempt to establish how his talent justifies his enormous salary, and his fussy needs and demands. "Build a team around Steph", yet after 9 years in the league nobody knows what that team should look like, or even what position he should play.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

God damn I love this ****ing board.

No offense Grinch but he just Toasted your ***! Seriously, that was a dissertation on why you suck! Not that I think you do but Oak sure doees ! Hahaha awesome.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

"seem to see the floor well at the heightened pace, or really with much movement at all. He appears not to recognize cutters, alley oop opportunities or backdoor moves to the basket."

hey oak, name one time that there EVER, EVER was any movement in our offense. blame the coaching staff. how can u give a backdoor pass if nobodys ever there? our offense was just 5 guys standing around the perimeter. nobody ever cut to the damn hoop.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Let me dissappoint you in advance. The Knicks don't make the playoffs this season. No, Larry can't save them. Q-Rich can't save them. Marbury can't save them. They're crashing and no one can do anything about it. Unless somehow they get Amare or Kobe....hmm....

I never thought I'd say this but I must. We all know that when someone from a team leaves and the team he left doesn't make the playoffs and the team he goes to gets a whole ton of wins, well everyone will say it was because of that player. In this case its Kurt Thomas, leaving the Knicks, going to the Suns. I'll say it....

No kurt? no playoffs....

Happy??


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

whats with all these new users just entering our forum and bashing our squad...

just wondering.

and btw, d12 sucks


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

PennyHardaway said:


> "seem to see the floor well at the heightened pace, or really with much movement at all. He appears not to recognize cutters, alley oop opportunities or backdoor moves to the basket."
> 
> hey oak, name one time that there EVER, EVER was any movement in our offense. blame the coaching staff. how can u give a backdoor pass if nobodys ever there? our offense was just 5 guys standing around the perimeter. nobody ever cut to the damn hoop.


Penny, there's probably some elements of truth to what you say. All I know is what I saw with Marbury and three coaches here (Chaney, Lenny and Herb) and with LB in the Olympics.

So rather than assume that all those coaches hold motion in low regard, I assume they tailored the offense around Steph's strengths and weaknesses, considering he has the ball in his hands as much as he does.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Biggestfanoftheknicks said:


> God damn I love this ****ing board.
> 
> No offense Grinch but he just Toasted your ***! Seriously, that was a dissertation on why you suck! Not that I think you do but Oak sure doees ! Hahaha awesome.


Nah, Grinch is cool. I just vented a bit. I've had these types of discussions before, in similar detail, only to be responded to by some 13 year old telling me we all know Steph has flaws, but I'm just blind, I'm an idiot, I just believe everything Chad Ford and Peter Vescey tell me to believe, Steph must have stolen my girlfriend, and I should go root for the Nets...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

oak i am not going to get into another long drawn out post about it but i think you missing a simple point i have tried to make , and this also goes out to all the other bean counters on this board.

using a man's income as a reason to dislike him is hating.

its really not a debatable point, its what hating is.

I am of course assuming you know what hating is in the way i am using it, not the KKK or nazi kind the garden variety trying to put a person down for the size of their bank account hating or how many albums they sell hating.

does his contract really kill the knicks cap? no it doesn't no 1 contract could ever do that, if it were wiped clean and nothing came in its way to replace it. the knicks would still be 40 mil. over the cap this upcoming season,

i assume you know that, which is why when i think intelligent posters use that as a reason , it baffles me, it clearly is an outdated concept and one that has no bearing on present day knick affairs.

worrying about 2009 or some far off time is silly a 1000 things can change between now and then and its kind of naive to think if his salary would seriously be a reason to trade him seeing as the knicks despite the rebuilding tag have not stopped spending $ and their goal for 2 seasons has been to trade in TT and penny for contracts of better players with more years on their deals(and also because contracts have to have similar value the knicks cap figures are a good bet to rise higher when that happens) . Using it as a reason to dislike marbury specifically is like blaming Kuwait for how much you have to pay for gasoline. Sure they could personally sell it to you for less but to single them out for the 3 dollars a gallon that is being charged is pointless and would only make you look small when there are easily more serious reasons for the price that is charged.

marbury is the nba equivalent, he is not a guy you would want making that kind of $ because he is not an all nba performer, but he isn't at fault for the knicks cap woes, nor has he been in the past, and he basically never will be .


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Pippen Played with 2 of the Best Players at there positions of All-Time still in there Prime & 1 of them already lead a team to back to back titles & the other lead a team to the Finals . Yet when pippen go there they *never* even got past the 2nd round


pip was in houston for one year, and rudy t. basically made him a standstill-three-point-shooter in their offense... he was in portland for a while too, remember?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Shadyballa8D12 said:


> Let me dissappoint you in advance. The Knicks don't make the playoffs this season. No, Larry can't save them.
> 
> 
> > Once again we have another fan who keeps getting his coaches confused. Let me help you with your quote. "No, Phil can't save them (Lakers)." That outta do it.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Kobe has gotten so much he's made up a word about it. Its called Kobe-bashing.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Shadyballa8D12 said:


> Kobe has gotten so much he's made up a word about it. Its called Kobe-bashing.


KobeBashing is an american pastime.....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> oak i am not going to get into another long drawn out post about it but i think you missing a simple point i have tried to make , and this also goes out to all the other bean counters on this board.
> 
> using a man's income as a reason to dislike him is hating.
> 
> ...



That's okay Grinch, I knew it would all be lost on you.

See ya.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Grinch,
I can tell you that when the marbury trade went down,Oak and myslef were two of the biggest supporters of the trade.....

In the 2 years i have watched him I now see what the previous 3 teams he was traded from saw in him.I see what Lenny,Herb,Phil and most importantly Larry saw him.

Yes Larry and Marbury are making nice and saying all the right things,but without Zeke in the middle this will get ugly.The day of reckoning is fast approaching,and Larry will have his way.

Marbury is a supremely talented individual talent,but he lacks the intangable qualities all the great point guards possess.it starts with leadership and being able to take the individual talent on the floor and make it greater than the sum of the parts.But it doesnt start and end with what you do on the floor.leadership is a 24/7 quality.Steph is a divisive individual and he does more harm than good.Dispute it if you like,but being traded 3x in 8 years speaks volumes..

Grinch,i will generously give marbury a pass as the talent placed around him has not been champoinship level.But in hndsight,Frank Williams ran the Knicks better than Stephon Marbury.There was flow to the offense,they ran and you actually saw alley opps and finishes.And Frank actually played Defense,something marbury uses to catch his wind..

Marbury may get his 20 and eight but AI and francis gets theirs as well.Would you want any one of them being your point guard??? I certainly wouldnt.

Steph is a scoring guard and a very good one at that.As a point guard,he holds the ball way too long disrupting the flow as its impossible to execute when there is 5 seconds left on the clock.

He is a great penetrator,but all too often leaves his feet with nowhere to go.Great point guards penetrate with the intent on distributing and never leave their feet...How many times have you watched nash penetrate,and then bring it back out???In two years I have NEVER seen marbury penetrate without leaving his feet.He looks to score and as a last resort,desparately kicks it out.

How many alley oops have you seen Steph execute??How many times have you actually seen Steph lead the break???

If that isnt enough,how many times has Stephon led team advanced past the first round of the playoffs??


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

bring back ewing


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> That's okay Grinch, I knew it would all be lost on you.
> 
> See ya.


no oak i do get what you are saying its just not a valid point for the knicks because their team isn't set up to care about the cap.

on court and off court matters are completely different.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

son of oakley said:


> Penny, there's probably some elements of truth to what you say. All I know is what I saw with Marbury and three coaches here (Chaney, Lenny and Herb) and with LB in the Olympics.
> 
> So rather than assume that all those coaches hold motion in low regard, I assume they tailored the offense around Steph's strengths and weaknesses, considering he has the ball in his hands as much as he does.



Nah I just love the long posts, or Penny taking a shot a D12 for no other reason then its on someones title. Ah man its funny. With Larry Brown at the helm I'm willing to give steph another chance. Though his time LB may destroy his trade value.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Biggestfanoftheknicks said:


> Nah I just love the long posts, or Penny taking a shot a D12 for no other reason then its on someones title. Ah man its funny. With Larry Brown at the helm I'm willing to give steph another chance. Though his time LB may destroy his trade value.


Steph has trade value...If you team happens to have Chris Webber,Michael Finley or Erik Dampier on it


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> no oak i do get what you are saying its just not a valid point for the knicks because their team isn't set up to care about the cap.


That's true, and that's part of what I complain about. Steph is certainly not personally accountable for that. But that doesn't negate the fact that I don't think he's the right guy for this team at this time, and _part_ of that is because of his massive contract. But that is but one of many reasons. You are the one who calls that "hate", not me. 

I like Steph, like I like Francis, but just not for us.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I like Steph too...especially on the Hawks with Smith and Harrington coming here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

truth said:


> Grinch,
> I can tell you that when the marbury trade went down,Oak and myslef were two of the biggest supporters of the trade.....
> 
> Grinch,i will generously give marbury a pass as the talent placed around him has not been champoinship level.But in hndsight,Frank Williams ran the Knicks better than Stephon Marbury.There was flow to the offense,they ran and you actually saw alley opps and finishes.And Frank actually played Defense,something marbury uses to catch his wind..


frank williams isn't in the nba 18 months later and he's only 26 how well he actually runs a team and plays defense has been overrated imo , the bulls could have used a pg who runs a team well and plays defense if not as a starter then as a backup with ben gordon , and he played 71 min. for them, that doesn't speak highly of him. heck if zeke(or anyone) thought so highly of him they could have the guy for the min.





> He is a great penetrator,but all too often leaves his feet with nowhere to go.Great point guards penetrate with the intent on distributing and never leave their feet...How many times have you watched nash penetrate,and then bring it back out???In two years I have NEVER seen marbury penetrate without leaving his feet.He looks to score and as a last resort,desparately kicks it out.


that is not true, pg's leave their feet to pass all the time , post player are trained not to jump until the player with ball does...thats basic basketball, steve nash leaves the ground to throw passes all the time to do that cousy-like hookpass he is fond of...all point guards jump to pass , the great ones get away with it. the others dont a great deal of the time.



> Steph is a scoring guard and a very good one at that.As a point guard,he holds the ball way too long disrupting the flow as its impossible to execute when there is 5 seconds left on the clock.


he is also their leading scorer and their go-to guy, sometimes the plays are designed for him to do that and sometimes they aren't, the knicks are a ball control type team by design , out of their starting 5 last season only crawford likes to run and that is mostly as a pg and he doesn't not move in a halfcourt setting. their bench runs more but not by much, penny houston, mo , rose none of these guys run much. ariza and jyd like to run , but no pg in his right mind runs without a better group of finishers...maybe this year they will be better because frye is supposedly a runner same and nate definitely is.

sweetney kurt , TT these guys are not runners , and they dont move and cut, they are low activity players , they were that way before they ever played with marbury and they haven't changed. get used to it because larry brown does not coach running basketball either , he likes a walk it up style of play.

i dont think brown and marbury will be any worse for wear than lets say iverson and brown , in fact i think there will be less trouble, for a few reasons , brown has the hammer to put on him like no other coach he has ever encountered.

if marbury gets into a prolonged beef with brown , no one will blame brown , everyone will blame marbury and rightfully so. and the other reason is marbury's age he turns 29 this year and he has enough maturity and wisdom to realize that wins matter more than stats , he's gotten his money, he's noticed how people react to his numbers and his results, and if you have been paying attention to his statements over the past couple of years he really has been turning the courner in that regard.

also marbury imo and also yours and others is no true leader. on a larry brown team , Larry brown in the leader , you do what he says and thats it. he will be more free just to play without scrutiny as long as its the way brown wants him to. marbury to me is a leader similar to ewing in that you cant really wait around for him to inspire you, he does his job so you have to do yours, its about being professional, some guys do more than that like jerome williams and malik rose and will do all they can to make the team a better group. they are leaders.

that isn't marbury.



> Marbury is a supremely talented individual talent,but he lacks the intangable qualities all the great point guards possess.it starts with leadership and being able to take the individual talent on the floor and make it greater than the sum of the parts.But it doesnt start and end with what you do on the floor.leadership is a 24/7 quality.Steph is a divisive individual and he does more harm than good.Dispute it if you like,but being traded 3x in 8 years speaks volumes..


being traded to me is no red mark ,moses malone was traded several times as was wilt, and alot of players get traded 1nce or 2twice just because a team thinks it can do better with someone else. it very much depends on the reason why you were traded. for instance the reason jkidd was traded for marbury was kidd hit his wife and the suns wanted him gone for that...thats a bad reason , for which the nets got the better player in the deal. 

the wolves got more than fair value for him brandon and the #6 pick in the 99 draft (the wolves could have gotten marion, a miller or rip hamilton the following 3 picks , but took wally z instead) marbury threatened not to re-sign and they traded him, nothing to do with underachieving on the court, everything on that front was going according to plan, imo if marb had stayed the wolves would have reached the 2nd round far sooner.


SM with penny for a bunch of guys who no one can say are starter quality and that includes frank williams, he played 71 minutes this season and its not like chis duhon and janero pargo were so good williams shouldn't have played, he cant be taken seriously at this point until he rights his own ship. and i like frank i thought at the time of the trade he was the best player chicago got, but he was very lazy and out of shape for them. not a guy who can lead any team, hindsight or not.

now that trade you can marbury was at fault in some degree because he got traded for stuff he shouldn't have and even then he had to come with penny , the suns clearly just wanted him and his contract off their team, if they could have dealt him and penny for handshake they would have..


marbury considering the amount of ballhandling and scoring he does is anything but careless, in fact i found him to be far too careful if anything , settling for the safe pick and roll instead of trying harder to get better shots for the knicks driving and kicking the ball out when maybe a more risky pass to the interior was best, some of it are the guys on his team , but some of it is him. it is very rare he actually loses the ball in a situation in which he jumps in the air and has no where to go as you mentioned. you can actually look up the guys with his burden of ballhandling and scoring , lowering the standards, no one gets 21 and 8 , out of the guards in the league who avg. 17 points and 4 assists or better only jamal crawford and mike bibby avg. fewer to's . and neither of them handle the ball nearly as much as marbury, bibby due to his team setup where the power players do alot of the ballhandling to set up the perimeter players and crawford is in the same backcourt as marbury, when marbury is on the court crawford's ballhandling is limited. 



> In the 2 years i have watched him I now see what the previous 3 teams he was traded from saw in him.I see what Lenny,Herb,Phil and most importantly Larry saw him.


you dont know what larry sees or saw in him none of us really does.

larry brown has not ever said one bad thing about marbury, he did not ask for marbury to sent home, because it makes no sense.

who could they have posibly gotten to replace marbury on such short notice?

the team was overcrowded on the wings with non-shooters and big men who not useful to brown if anyone were going to leave it would have been one of them.

and melo was a disruptive person on that trip, if anyone were going to go it would have been him. there were no point guards in greece except marbury and iverson and brown wanted AI at the 2. if anything i'll take the word of john calipari from Outside The Lines last night who was an asst. of brown in philly and with him this week at brown's basketball camp who said brown liked and appreciated how hard marbury tried to learn what brown was attempting to teach him.



> Marbury may get his 20 and eight but AI and francis gets theirs as well.Would you want any one of them being your point guard??? I certainly wouldnt.


would you want parker as you point guard instead? or john paxson or ron harper? or brian shaw?

how about kenny smith or sam cassell? 

all those guys have multiple rings in the past 15 years, some of those guys in their title winning team wouldn't even make the knicks rotation next year ahead of nate or crawford let alone start.

what wins are teams, not individuals ...how many of those guys can you call leaders...i would say none really , not a single one all of those guys followed someone else clearly whether it was shaq and kobe pip and MJ or hakeem, they were pg's but they were not leaders but they were extremely successful.



> If that isnt enough,how many times has Stephon led team advanced past the first round of the playoffs?


there is no right formula no matter how much people want there to be, which is why there are so many different philosophies out there. I dont think a team in which he is the best player is suited to make a run in the playoffs, unless the team was shaped in such a way it doesn't matter that he is the best player, i think i have a lower opinion of his talent than you do. i dont think a team with him and a 20 year old phenom of your choice(garnett or amare) is best suited to make noise in the playoffs, i find time tested, talented deep teams to be those and he has never been on one, he has been on very young teams where he is generally the vet the young players are forced to lean on, a role i dont think he fits well.

heck the last time marbury was in the playoffs he did better than nash did against the spurs and that was with a far better team around him(an all-nba 22 year old amare, a maturing JJ, Q & of course marion, with all that nash won 1 game with against a spurs team just as good while when stephon matched up won 2, that suns team obviously wasn't as good but it matched up better somehow.



> Yes Larry and Marbury are making nice and saying all the right things,but without Zeke in the middle this will get ugly.The day of reckoning is fast approaching,and Larry will have his way.


sometimes people say all the right things because its the truth, not everything is a plot to get over on sportswriters and fans.

brown is a winner,he knows the game, he is a hall of fame coach and you cant really object to a team trying to bring him in if the goal is to win. Thats what marbury said ...i just dont see alot of holes there. sure he could be saying that because he wants to support thomas in his hiring or just to say what the media and fans want to hear, but that doesn't mean its not true, if you dont like marbury hey , that all well and good but to me, the reasons have to mean something.

if everything the man says does is wrong or has some machiavelian-like plot to it and that really seems to be what people are insinuating when they post things like that. its like the guy could say anything and it would be turned around.



> How many alley oops have you seen Steph execute??How many times have you actually seen Steph lead the break???


i've seen plenty of both in fact i remember when he used be a finisher on many alleys ...but who is he going to throw alleys to on the knicks? sweetney? TT? penny? outside of the ones Jc throws to himself i've never seen him catch one, not on the knicks or in 4 years on the bulls, there are no stromiles on the knicks , he threw plenty in phoenix.

quarterbacks have to have recievers.

he has run breaks lots of them but he isn't a running pg on that i agree, its funny in a sense to see that common critic of his game usually it comes hand and hand with him stat padding , even though the easiest way to pad your #s is to run, especially if you can finish like marbury.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> That's true, and that's part of what I complain about. Steph is certainly not personally accountable for that. But that doesn't negate the fact that I don't think he's the right guy for this team at this time, and _part_ of that is because of his massive contract. But that is but one of many reasons. You are the one who calls that "hate", not me.
> 
> I like Steph, like I like Francis, but just not for us.


the tread is called marbury hate...with that as a heading there is that implication for which i made an assumption that i will now take back.

i accept the parts about his actual game no problem and agree with some of them such as his defense, which i find to be sub-par and know he can do better.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Grinch, I enjoyed your reply to truth very much and agree with so much of it. I found it much more thoughtful (less excuse oriented) than most of your replies to me and I see that your vision of him and mine are really not that far apart.

Just two things I'd like to touch upon.

1) Like you, I find him too conservative in his approach. I respect his assist to turnover ratio and guys like Kidd turn it over a lot more than him. If I were his coach I'd ask him to open up his game more, take a few more chances. Especially when the Knicks were out of contention. 

On another board I made an issue of his spending many practices on the massage table rather than scrimmaging (once after giving a speech on self sacrifice). I found this important for two reasons: A) Since I'd heard he did it in Phoenix too it indicated one of two things to me; that he's a prima donna who's used to being treated royally, or that he has ongoing chronic leg issues. I found both possibilities equally threatening. B) Because as in the Olympics with Marion and Amare (and everyone else), he was showing no signs of having that ESP chemistry you see great duos having together and it occurred to me it might be because he's not developing it during practice. I know Marion and Amare were particularly appreciative that Nash was spending extra hours in practice to really get to know their sweets spots, and I felt the difference between the approaches to practice were palpable. 

Long story short, I really wanted to see Steph using some of his 40mpg trying to find ways to feed the interior better for the bigs, trying to push tempo with outlet passes, rotating to the sides and corners to encourage movement and cutters, etc. The stagnancy and repetition of our offense simply drove me nuts.

2) I agree with you about the types of teams Steph's been on and what would be required for him to win. Now taken to it's logical extreme one could say he'd do well in a situation like the Spurs with Duncan, Minny with KG, Miami with Shaq, etc. But the reality is that those are the kinds of settings that permit PGs like Avery Johnson and Derek Fisher to succeed, so it's no stretch to imagine Steph pulling it off. However, what is the likelihood of us getting the great complimentary bigman stud to Marbury with low draft picks and the MLE? Near impossible. 

This is why I make an issue about him and his contract relative to our rebuild. Shouldn't we be pursuing talent that gives us a shot to win with a lesser PG, say through high draft picks and under the cap free agency, and then developing an unspectacular but able PG like Crawford or Nate, rather than getting Steph and then having the lowest of odds of surrounding him with sufficient talent to win? It's something of a rhetorical question but one I've asked myself a million times, and over and over I conclude that at this stage of the game steph is more of a hindrance to our rebuild than boon.

That's not Steph's fault, but when people tell me I'm hating on poor Steph and give him a chance I get a little cynical. I just think there is a lid on how high we can go thru our current means and I don't believe in building _around_ Steph. He's not that good. Build something strong and add him on top, maybe. But put him in first with the intent of supporting him with low draft picks and the MLE just doesn't compute. So supporting Steph sounds warm and fuzzy, but where does it really get us compared to "dumping" Steph and doing a proper rebuild with top three picks and chasing Lebron, Amare, Dwight Howard, etc? (again, asked rhetorically)

PS, on another note, I like your sig, what's it from?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Grinch, I enjoyed your reply to truth very much and agree with so much of it. I found it much more thoughtful (less excuse oriented) than most of your replies to me and I see that your vision of him and mine are really not that far apart.


thx i really dont think our views are that far apart either.



> Just two things I'd like to touch upon.
> 
> 1) Like you, I find him too conservative in his approach. I respect his assist to turnover ratio and guys like Kidd turn it over a lot more than him. If I were his coach I'd ask him to open up his game more, take a few more chances. Especially when the Knicks were out of contention.
> 
> On another board I made an issue of his spending many practices on the massage table rather than scrimmaging (once after giving a speech on self sacrifice). I found this important for two reasons: A) Since I'd heard he did it in Phoenix too it indicated one of two things to me; that he's a prima donna who's used to being treated royally, or that he has ongoing chronic leg issues. I found both possibilities equally threatening. B) Because as in the Olympics with Marion and Amare (and everyone else), he was showing no signs of having that ESP chemistry you see great duos having together and it occurred to me it might be because he's not developing it during practice. I know Marion and Amare were particularly appreciative that Nash was spending extra hours in practice to really get to know their sweets spots, and I felt the difference between the approaches to practice were palpable.




the massages ...yeah its a little in the wuss book for me too, he should be playing with his teammates as much as possible if not for his game , then for theirs , a problem i dont think will continue with brown , he is big on practicing and practice habits, i dont think steph will live on the trainers table this year. i think steph did it in the past because he wanted to and no one stopped him, lenny was a guy who was too nice and herb ...well come april it seemed you were just as likely to see crawford finish a game at pg as marbury, and crawford did very well, something that may have been as much a message to marbury as much trying out Jc at pg. i tend to think if herb had a problem with marbury's massages though he would have put an end to it, herb doesn't strike me as a guy marbury can walk all over..

i honestly dont remember all 3 of them(amare, marion and marbs) even on the court at the same time in athens and when i saw 2 of them it didn't seem like there was that cohesiveness you would expect , i agree , it looked to me marbury had the most chemistry with AI and duncan. marbury really doesn't show an esp type feel with anyone , he doesn't seem to have that kind of open, exploratory vibe that would even allow it, i just cant see him playing around making up new stuff to put on a show for the crowd(it will be a cold day in hell before you see him bounce a ball off his head for an alley oop.), you rarely see marbury try anything new. at this point he does what he knows and thats it. i dont think he's looking for new bonds, just to hone what he already does.

as far as dilligently working with a guy to hone his game from certain spots on the floor marbury is not that guy , most pg's aren't , they all obviously know their players spots on the floor but a guy like nash and also stockton who used to greet new players by saying hello and and asking where they like the ball in the next sentence are the exception to the rule in their dedication to that kind of stuff.

in regards to his passing to the interior i belive its in part due to himself but his teammates have a hand in it as well. kurt was not a finisher and stayed away from the rim , sweets got his share of passes on the inside as did nazr , the rest well they didn't. on pho. he passed inside quite bit for scores, but during his time in ny he has been somewhat abysmal in that regard. I'll spare you the stats and just say he was the worst in the league in his ratio of inside/outside assists, which generally means the 8.1 assists he avg. looks far more impressive than it actually is as far as helping the knicks win. 



> 2) I agree with you about the types of teams Steph's been on and what would be required for him to win. Now taken to it's logical extreme one could say he'd do well in a situation like the Spurs with Duncan, Minny with KG, Miami with Shaq, etc. But the reality is that those are the kinds of settings that permit PGs like Avery Johnson and Derek Fisher to succeed, so it's no stretch to imagine Steph pulling it off. However, what is the likelihood of us getting the great complimentary bigman stud to Marbury with low draft picks and the MLE? Near impossible.
> 
> This is why I make an issue about him and his contract relative to our rebuild. Shouldn't we be pursuing talent that gives us a shot to win with a lesser PG, say through high draft picks and under the cap free agency, and then developing an unspectacular but able PG like Crawford or Nate, rather than getting Steph and then having the lowest of odds of surrounding him with sufficient talent to win? It's something of a rhetorical question but one I've asked myself a million times, and over and over I conclude that at this stage of the game steph is more of a hindrance to our rebuild than boon.
> 
> That's not Steph's fault, but when people tell me I'm hating on poor Steph and give him a chance I get a little cynical. I just think there is a lid on how high we can go thru our current means and I don't believe in building _around_ Steph. He's not that good. Build something strong and add him on top, maybe. But put him in first with the intent of supporting him with low draft picks and the MLE just doesn't compute. So supporting Steph sounds warm and fuzzy, but where does it really get us compared to "dumping" Steph and doing a proper rebuild with top three picks and chasing Lebron, Amare, Dwight Howard, etc? (again, asked rhetorically)


i think the opposite , i think the knicks aquisition philosophy is like the yankees in the sense they are doing whatever is possible to get big stars and big attractions in the garden. Just basically get the best players available with no regard to their cost as long as they are better than what they are replacing. that sys. works as long as the talent evaluators do their job and pick the right big guy to build around. Zeke has mentioned that its his plan to have expiring deals every year to trade in an attempt to keep turning over talent for the better. Meanwhile they have NY's favorite son playing pg. they draft a transplanted nyer in frye who is apparently extremely likeable, they got another couple of fan favorites in david lee and nate robinson .lively leaders in rose and jyd with another fast favorite in ariza. they keep flirting with the idea of wally Z who is from LI, and got larry brown who is from long beach. they got crawford who is a polarizing influence at times but a talented and exciting player.Q is also a guy fans like.

eventually i think the goal is simply to make the knicks a big story , keep the fans happy with more watchable play and more identifyable players while looking to hook better and better players...armed with some ending deals and some young players to some capped out team with a really good big looking to start over, and there are a couple every year , this year's big man on the market is jamaal magliore whom the hornets are supposedly shopping this summer because he is sick of the losing with no end in sight , he will likely be joined by at least one of the following , z.randolph, garnett and brand(although they should pass on zach, if available) if their teams underachieve again in the next year or so. 

a guy like garnett is gettable if a team has enough chips, he turns 30 next year and they look like they will have to start over again , for instance the knicks actually have enough in expiring deals to aquire him and wally z at the same time , if the t'wolves decided to start over, the knicks more than just about any other team right now have the ability to pull off blockbuster deals. 8 players 25 years or younger 6 of them on their rookie deals, 2 ending deals totaling 30 mil, and an indifference to adding salary.

not saying this will happen, because it is somewhat unlikely but its a possibilty , something that isn't a possibilty for most teams. you gotta be in it to win it.

money is not seeming like a hinderance, if anything it provides more copy, which seems to be worth its weight in publicity and buzz

there is always going to be somebody, thomas could have gotten kwame if he was willing to part with Q, something i would have done in a heartbeat, its pretty obvious he would have been a better fit than caron who is not really a shooting guard , just a small small forward. baron was dealt for speddy claxton and the contract of dale davis, and vince was dealt elsewhere just to spite him, the knicks may wind up taking an indirect route to a blue chip big, and getting a guard like francis who they will later deal for a big.

Steph is just a guy in the scheme of things to me i dont think zeke really looks for him to be a savior ,far from it in fact, but moreso a guy to hit big shots when the team is ready to do more important things which is not now, if he is still on the team , he more than anyone knows how hard it is to be talented pg on a team that is too green to be taken seriously , he had to wait for better talent and then wait some more for that talent to mature. and marbs is no I.thomas, a fact i am sure that hasn't escaped thomas' notice. i actually think zeke looks more to crawford to be the guy down the line, if its anyone on the roster, which it could easily not be.



> Long story short, I really wanted to see Steph using some of his 40mpg trying to find ways to feed the interior better for the bigs, trying to push tempo with outlet passes, rotating to the sides and corners to encourage movement and cutters, etc. The stagnancy and repetition of our offense simply drove me nuts.


they had an extremely basic playbook when herb was the coach, feed the post, pick and pop or pick and roll , and that was basically it. i dont think it had much to do with the players , you see it all time when there is a mid-season change, that team will only run 3-7 plays the rest of the season. the bulls during the 2003-04 season when skiles was installed it was reported he only had a 6 play playbook and really only used 3 of them. 

to me the stagnating and repetition of the offense is a coaching problem, one that couldn't have been avoided. they had more plays when lenny was the coach, but when he was fired so was his rather outdated playbook. herb would have had more plays if he had a training camp (summer league showed some motion/passing off. traits in addition to some basic pick and roll basketball, herb also went to a tex winter coaching clinic ...i can only assume to get a better handle on teaching the triangle...or at least some plays from it) , there is limited practice time during the season and it has to be used on game preperation and honing the plays they already know rather than learning new ones...besides sometime a simple play like a pick and roll was troublesome enough for them to execute properly. those problems should be fixed pretty easily with brown and a training camp.

even considering the limited playbook i found the knicks last year to be fun to watch, the games were almost always close, and despite the repetition of the plays there was always the chance of something special happening because the players were very capable of exciting plays.



> PS, on another note, I like your sig, what's it from?


thanks again its from "The grinch that stole christmas" that movie with jim carrey,


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Good stuff, Grinch. On a slow day I'd toss a few more thoughts your way, but can't today. But good stuff.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> frank williams isn't in the nba 18 months later and he's only 26 how well he actually runs a team and plays defense has been overrated imo


The Frank Williams analogy was more of a reflection on how the team played together with Frank on the floor.maybe they were just thrilled to have Eisly off of it.For the short time frank played,there seemed to be more energy certainly they ran much better...Marbury seems to divide teams,not bring them together.Lets face it,hes not the sharpest tool in the shed,and says some incredibly stupid things.Hes the quarteback..he needs to act like one






> that is not true, pg's leave their feet to pass all the time


marbury penetrates with the sole purpose of scoring.When he leaves his feet,his eyes are on the rim...then he kicks it out...Nash penetrates with the intention of breaking down the D and passing.Totally different mindsets



> out of their starting 5 last season only crawford likes to run and that is mostly as a pg and he doesn't not move in a halfcourt setting.


TT gets out on the break as well,as Crawford...marbury appears to have lost end to end speed and that not really his game.I never liked him running the break..he is certainly no Kidd or nash..



> i dont think brown and marbury will be any worse for wear than lets say iverson and brown , in fact i think there will be less trouble, for a few reasons , brown has the hammer to put on him like no other coach he has ever encountered.


Marburys dumb,hes not stupid..He knew full well he could do as he pleased with Lenny and Herb..There is a new sherrif in town who has ALL the power,and marbury knows all to well that he is on a very short leash




> also marbury imo and also yours and others is no true leader. on a larry brown team , Larry brown in the leader , you do what he says and thats it. he will be more free just to play without scrutiny as long as its the way brown wants him to. marbury to me is a leader similar to ewing in that you cant really wait around for him to inspire you, he does his job so you have to do yours, its about being professional, some guys do more than that like jerome williams and malik rose and will do all they can to make the team a better group. they are leaders.
> that isn't marbury.


Leading is one thing..Being Divisive is another.Ewing was the Big fella everyone admired and counted on..




> being traded to me is no red mark


Its may not be a red mark,but it certainly is a question mark..




> you dont know what larry sees or saw in him none of us really does.


The fact that Zeke was brought in has negative connotations...



> would you want parker as you point guard instead? or john paxson or ron harper? or brian shaw?how about kenny smith or sam cassell?





> all those guys have multiple rings in the past 15 years, some of those guys in their title winning team wouldn't even make the knicks rotation next year ahead of nate or crawford let alone start.





> what wins are teams, not individuals ...how many of those guys can you call leaders..


Grinch,this is where you and I do not see eye to eye....You acknowledge that teams win,not individuals.....
Grinch thats very true,but what also wins is the individuals playing within the system and accpeting their role and often sacrificing for the success of the team

Dont ask me if I would take Harper ,Shaw and Paxon over Marbury..Ask Phil Jackson..But there is really no need.Jax wouldnt touch marbury with a 10 foot pole..He wants guys to fit into his system..
Would Pops take marbury over parker??No Fukking way..

Its not about individual talent.marbury and JC will be gone if they choose not to play D..

Grinch,I really think you miss this point,and it will happen with coach Brown.

These guys all play within the system and are willing to be complementary players...They are coaches dreams...Are any of them more talented than marbury??No way,but they are far more valuable in their coaches eyes than Marbury...

When you play for the great coaches,the Jacksons,Pops and Brown,its a much different ballgame..Marbury talks the talk,but its up to him to start walking it...Its not about PPg and APg...There is a thing called defense he must be introduced to..He needs to fit into the system....He needs to get "the best point guard in the NBA" mentality out of his head......

This goes for everyone on that team


















.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

come on truth...jumping to pass isnt anything new. that gets the defender out of position for an easy bucket. and there was many a times steph didnt leave his feet and gave a nice bounce pass


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

PennyHardaway said:


> come on truth...jumping to pass isnt anything new. that gets the defender out of position for an easy bucket. and there was many a times steph didnt leave his feet and gave a nice bounce pass


Penny,Marbury penetrates with the intent on scoring...Its his mindset..He is a scoring point guard.Its very natural for him....You guys act like thats an insult..It isnt,but its not the Brown way...

You can make all the excuses you want for Marbury...The teams he was on,the players,the coaches....Doesnt matter....He led a team to 33 wins last year,and once again had "issues" with the starting foward.He has gotten KVH shipped out of town and now KT...He doesnt play defense and history has proven that Marbury led teams cant get out of the first round of the playoffs..

hopefully brown can chage history


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> The Frank Williams analogy was more of a reflection on how the team played together with Frank on the floor.maybe they were just thrilled to have Eisly off of it.For the short time frank played,there seemed to be more energy certainly they ran much better...Marbury seems to divide teams,not bring them together.Lets face it,hes not the sharpest tool in the shed,and says some incredibly stupid things.Hes the quarteback..he needs to act like one


i think you underestimate him, he's no dummy , he's not articulate , and that not the same thing. he sounds like basically everyone else from coney island, its just the way he talks, he's no knucklehead, in fact his trend when problems arise is to take advantage of situations for instance the massages, when the cap basically forced him to only make a certain amount he got traded to the ny area...a less savvy guy may have wound up in a place he didn't want to be like vancouver.








> marbury penetrates with the sole purpose of scoring.When he leaves his feet,his eyes are on the rim...then he kicks it out...Nash penetrates with the intention of breaking down the D and passing.Totally different mindsets


all point guards have to at least give the impression of trying to score when taking it to the hoop, if nash didn't no one would come over giving him the passing lanes to make so many assists. marbury is never so intent on scoring he cant pass out with ease(unlike guys like wade and francis who often drive without a thought to passing and avg. over 4 turnovers agame because of it. a significant amount more than stephon's 2.8), in fact he excels at passing out of those situations, i find fault with him making the easy pass instead of truly pressuring the defense by finding guys near the hoop, maybe risking more turnovers but the knicks would be better for it.





> TT gets out on the break as well,as Crawford...marbury appears to have lost end to end speed and that not really his game.I never liked him running the break..he is certainly no Kidd or nash..


TT 90% on breaks he is on is a trailer , he is almost never out in front unlike his backup ariza who makes it mission in life it seems to be out in front. nash and kidd are the best in the nba at running the break, marbury is good just not on their level , virtually no one else is either , its their forte.





> Marburys dumb,hes not stupid..He knew full well he could do as he pleased with Lenny and Herb..There is a new sherrif in town who has ALL the power,and marbury knows all to well that he is on a very short leash
> 
> Leading is one thing..Being Divisive is another.Ewing was the Big fella everyone admired and counted on..


not everyone admired ewing , far from it, his last 5 years as a knick someone was always trying to lessen his role and take his mantle of go to guy. first it was nellie with mason and soon after it was houston and sprewell.

marbury to me was not divisive, he attended practices, and he played, he finagled his way into the trainers's table massages but he didn't do it every day,but easily more than anyone else, he took liberties because he was the star, and the coaches imo enabled this, personally i believe it was because they knew they were overworking him during games. larry brown does not overwork his pg's, he's hard on them but its hard to imagine him playing marbury more than the 35 min. he played billups last season, especially with 1 , and possibly 2 quality backups at pg next year with jc and nate.

david robinson by comparison and his practice habits to me were divisive, as he vitually never attended participated in practices past x-mas his last 8 or so seasons, and the proof was in his game, he did not improve 1 iota past his 2nd season, never got a go to post move, no new wrinkles to his game at all, 

rodman all of people considered robinson the team's problem because of it and at the time alot of people agreed.






> Its may not be a red mark,but it certainly is a question mark..


i'll agree it can be but its not always






> The fact that Zeke was brought in has negative connotations...


i dont know why, 









> Grinch,this is where you and I do not see eye to eye....You acknowledge that teams win,not individuals.....
> Grinch thats very true,but what also wins is the individuals playing within the system and accpeting their role and often sacrificing for the success of the team


no one has asked marbury to do that , except larry brown in the olympics ...and he did it, stephon has been at every point of his nba career been the guy his team looked to in the clutch and that includes his time in minny with a garnett who is the same age, and past that time in minn. he has also been the unquestioned best player on his team...teams have been asking him to do _more_ , not less. in short he has been the system for the great majority of his nba career.




> Dont ask me if I would take Harper ,Shaw and Paxon over Marbury..Ask Phil Jackson..But there is really no need.Jax wouldnt touch marbury with a 10 foot pole..He wants guys to fit into his system..
> Would Pops take marbury over parker??No Fukking way..
> 
> Its not about individual talent.marbury and JC will be gone if they choose not to play D..
> ...


phil's no idiot, he would take him over the guys he has had and would have used his people skills to make it work, phil despite what you want to believe has quite a big ego , he took brian williams(a.k.a. bison dele) , he took rodman, heck he took scott williams, a guy who in his rookie year had johnny bach bringing a gun to work because he thought williams was going to snap over playing time and attack the coaching staff.

coaches want talent and will risk a great deal to get it, Pjax thought scott williams would be better than purdue and stacy king which is why he held on to him(he was right eventually) the notion that he would somehow take an old brian shaw over marbury is basically ridiculous to me. 

all coaches want to win , there is no difference , the difference is that the great coaches actually do win because they are great at coaching and coaxing great fromm good and good from mediocre, while the other guys just "want to win", marbury at one time was one of the better pg defenders in the league, not a stopper but pretty good, i think larry brown will bring that out in him again. if gets 20 and 8, playing the right way while being as good as he used to be defensively he will be the nba's best pg , he wont have to say it, people will say it for him.


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

Again Normally Marbury has the Intent to Score because theres normally no one Else capable of Scoring Consistently on any team he's been on . Sure give me players that either came back healthy fro injury or progressed in there Carear like in the Case of a Jayson Williams-Keith Van Horn-Kenyon Martin-Amare Stoudimire-Shawn Marion-Joe Johnson-Jamal Crawford-Allan Houston been the best scorers Steph has played with & All where not the Players they where at there best with Steph then they where after Steph & thats not Stephs Fault . Considering Williams had his carrear ended , Van Horn & Martin each broke there legs , Amare was a Rookie & Matrix a 1st year player , Joe Johnson was not ready just like Crawford now & Jamal got hurt last year to top that off . Allen Houston has never been the Same since banging Knees with Larry Hughes in DC 2 years ago & What player does Marbury have to make Better .



Who Kurt Thomas who has not had a post game since the 20002 season , Mike Sweetney who cant stay on the Floor do to Foul trouble ? Who is this Player Marbury is feeding the post too ????


Need people forget that Jason Kidd was a WORSE LOSER then Marbury in Dallas where his teams never even sniffed Mid-Late Lottery let Alone Playoffs & that was in a Weak West . Kidds Carear did not take off untill he got to a team that better matched his skill set in Phoenix & even then he was looked at like a loser since his teams never Won in the playoffs. Not untill he got to Jersey with a Team perfectly suited for him in a Dramaticly Weak East did Kidd shead the notion that he was a loser . Now kidd was never a loser it's just his Teams in Dallas sucked dispite young potensul & his teams in Phoenix where not Taloir made for him like Jersey is . 


So like I Said untill a Team is Built around Marbury dont judge marbury for having to lead his Team , because the team aint HIS . Hell even the likes of Bibby-Baron-Francis-JWill-Dre-Stoudimire had Teams either fit around there needs or was placed on teams that suited there Needs , the Perfect example of this is Allen Iverson . Who had a team tottaly overhualed in his Image & they got to the Finals where they where Reffed of the Floor thanx to games 2 & 3 . So I feel the Same can be Done with Steph , the Diffrence is Steph does'nt look to be the Best scorer on the Team . He Can play with a Better Scorer or at least Equal Scorer & allow him to be the go to guy . Since like I always maintain Steph rather pass & make some one else good then just score him self . since he's pass before shooting guard


His Problem like most people from Brooklyn is that he holds on to the ball to long Dribbling for no reason instead of just passing the ball to a teamate & not expecting to get the ball Right back . since that normally the type of teams he's stuck on , with players that cant create there own shot or a shot for someone else . So he's forced to hold on to the Ball for about 15 seconds without ever advancing the play more then a pass to get the ball back to him because the defender tied him up . Crawford helped with this but when Crawford got injured along with Penny the Knicks had no one else that could either Run an offence or even help doing so & with all that saying that if he was a shoot 1st PG he would probelly just Jack up more Shots & what happend to some Knick fans dismay . Marbury even got more unselfish & passed the ball more & this was with KT & Nasr Hurt , JC-H20-1c injuried & Marbury still looked to pass 1st . It was'nt untill the Knicks fell well out of playoff contension did Marbury look to Shoot during the West Coast Trip . 


Ao please can we just get one player bigger then Marbury that can Score to play with him . to me th eonly players we have on the Roster from last year that seemed to truly be Marbury type players where Crawford (Too Small) JYD (Cant Score enough) Rose (See JYD) Ariza (See last 2) . So hopefully our Rookies & off season aquisitions are the right players to play with marbury . Since I think Brown will Mold Marbury into the Type of Player the Mainstream can Identifiy with better on the court .


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

guys,i was the biggest supporter of the Marbury trade and think Steph will thrive under Brown.Marbury is more than capable of playing Browns style of Bball.Certainly more so than a run and gun game...But that means he has got to make major adjustments,the main one playing some defense..If he cant stop dribble penetration,its over....

Hopefully having the summer off will help him come into camp fresher....

Marbury is really the least of our problems,assuming he can play D..

JC,Q,And James are really going to have to change their ways...

Sweets just needs to come back in shape with less body fat...


----------

