# Rashidi-Proved Wrong Once Again



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

Ehhh wheres Eisley? Riding the pine!!!!Wheres Frankie!!Producing like you said he couldnt!!And consistently too!!!


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I have always been in favor of the better player playing, fool.

Think Williams getting PT could possibly have anything to do with him actually not sucking in his last 2 games, by not throwing multiple passes out of bounds after making one decent one?

Use your noodle.

And learn to read.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

Frankie Williams!!!


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Use your noodle.


wats a noodle????


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> I have always been in favor of the better player playing, fool.
> 
> Think Williams getting PT could possibly have anything to do with him actually not sucking in his last 2 games, by not throwing multiple passes out of bounds after making one decent one?
> ...


STFU I know how to read and I know what you said. You were proved wrong and your boy Eisley $ucks my friend. No need for name calling for feeling dumb....


----------



## krob (Jul 6, 2002)

i'm not gonna get in y'all's little Ike and Tina fight... that said... it doesnt matter who starts, just who finishes... Frank was on the court in crunch time, thats all that matters


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>krob</b>!
> i'm not gonna get in y'all's little Ike and Tina fight... that said... it doesnt matter who starts, just who finishes... Frank was on the court in crunch time, thats all that matters


Totally agree.. Keep it up Frankie!


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Rashidi writes


> If F-Will can actually not suck in his next game, and by suck, I mean pulling another 1-6 with 3 turnovers in 10 minutes, then I just might be in favor of him starting.


Penny Hardaway writes


> good game for him,but as rashidi said,he needs to be consistent for chaney to start him.Chaney said it right to him,that he doesnt want good games followed up by bad games,and thats why hes not starting.


Rashidi writes


> But please, before you start with the anti-Rashidi comments, remember that *Frank Williams' biggest flaw is his utter lack of consistency.* Wait for him to actually string a game together before passing judgement on his mediocreness. Frank Williams is averaging 2 good games per month so far.


Rashidi writes


> He doesn't get more time, because he never utilizes the few minutes he is given. When he actually does play well once every 2 weeks, that's when he gets the extra minutes.
> 
> And what do you know? Not surprisingly Frank Williams follows up his decent game with another negligable contribution by going 0-3 with 1 assist in 6 minutes against the Wiz. Don't say "he didn't get the time", because he took a shot every 2 minutes. Had he gone 2-3, then he obviously would have played more than 6 minutes. This is why he doesn't play more, much less start.


Rashidi writes


> I don't particularly care for Howard Eisley, but I don't particularly care for inconsistent 3rd strings that don't produce either. If Williams were getting results, he'd be getting more minutes, plain and simple. If you can't ever play well in 6 minutes, why do you deserve 12? Frank Williams, his few good games included, is shooting 31% from the field, and 18% from 3pt range. Take away his good games, and these numbers are even worse. Guess what? These numbers support taking Williams out when he's 0-3. He's a complete non-factor in most of his games. Chaney doesn't make him a non-factor, Williams' own shoddy play makes him a non-factor.


Rashidi writes


> Wlliams seems to look good in the SG role, where he got to take Jiri Welsch off the dribble a few times in the 4th. I'm still not sold on his distribution and game flow skills. It won't matter once Ward is inevitably gone.
> 
> And at least he is performing at the same level as guys like Marcus Banks.


Use your noodle.

And learn to read.

Or develop comprehension skills.


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

Again all you have proven up until now is that you wanted an overpaid scrub to get more minutes over a young player who can produce. And when Frankie had a good game and never got the time the next game you always said that he didnt produce well enough in his limited time. Well if thats the case lets pull Houston and Van Horn from every game when they get a couple turnovers and go 0-3. Use my noodle? Thats pretty lame. Stop your praising of Eisley, that'll be better. And to say 1 last thing, this debate is over. You have been proven wrong, we are all Knicks fan and we shouldnt fight over who gets minutes. So lets just celebrate that the fool Laydumb is gone and Isiah is here to change this place!!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

LOL...too #$%$#$%$ funny..i love these arguments...Without rashidi,this board would sukk..Even though he was NOT a Frank Williams fan..To be fair,he was one of the few KVH supporters..

and for all you youngens,usr your noodle,means use your brains


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Well if thats the case lets pull Houston and Van Horn from every game when they get a couple turnovers and go 0-3. Use my noodle? Thats pretty lame. Stop your praising of Eisley, that'll be better.


Houston and Van Horn are proven to be quite good players. Frank Williams has yet to prove he's more than a backup.

And fact is, when a PG goes 0-3 and commits 3 turnovers in a short amount of time, it is quite disasterous. A PG is supposed to control the flow of the game. 0-3 with 3 turnovers in a short period of time is quite the opposite of control.



> Again all you have proven up until now is that you wanted an overpaid scrub to get more minutes over a young player who can produce.


All you have proven is your inability to comprehend what you read.



> You have been proven wrong, we are all Knicks fan and we shouldnt fight over who gets minutes.


Gee, if that's the case, then why do you argue over how many minutes Frank Williams gets? Please explain your hypocritical methods of thought.

As for being proven wrong, I notice that Eisley had 6 assists and 2 assists in 17 minutes, while Frank Williams had 6 assists and 5 turnovers in 25 mins.

So far the only good games Frank has had have come in the points category. As I've stated many times, he was a shoot first PG in college, not much of a distributor. While his scoring ability is a welcome option, he still has yet to show the control neccessary to be an effective starting PG. He's better off taking 2nd unit PGs off the dribble. The starting lineup has enough turnover prone scorers.


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Use your noodle.


wats a noodle?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

So far the only good games Frank has had have come in the points category. As I've stated many times, he was a shoot first PG in college, not much of a distributor.

If you're hung up on the word "distributor" call him a creator. He's not in college anymore.

Playing time is exactly the medicine to aid his turnovers. I'm more than wiling to suffer through some mishaps for what he does for the offense. The Knicks simply have a different dynamic when he's on the floor. His ability to penetrate, and add a little razzle dazzle, creates things no other Knick PG can. Plus, he makes a boring team more interesting to watch.

Eisley, Ward,... start with them or finish with them, neither will win the game for you with a layup.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Eisley, Ward,... start with them or finish with them, neither will win the game for you with a layup.


Actually Ward hit a layup in Baron Davis' face to win the game against New Orleans. And he has certainly had his share of big 3pters at the end of games.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually Ward hit a layup in Baron Davis' face to win the game against New Orleans. And he has certainly had his share of big 3pters at the end of games.


Excellent, he'll make a fine backup someday.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

He already is a fine backup.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> He already is a fine backup.


Funny. You got me. Guess I'll still be in denial that Eisley is a "starter" all the while until Williams replaces him.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

You're right. Ward sucks. The Knicks should have cut him after his miserable rookie year.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> You're right. Ward sucks. The Knicks should have cut him after his miserable rookie year.


STFU Rashidi you no noodle having *******.

I saw a spelling error you made a couple of posts ago. It gave me an endorphin rush and a huge boner. So I decided to post about it here.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of Oak is dead on

"Playing time is exactly the medicine to aid his turnovers. I'm more than wiling to suffer through some mishaps for what he does for the offense. The Knicks simply have a different dynamic when he's on the floor. His ability to penetrate, and add a little razzle dazzle, creates things no other Knick PG can. Plus, he makes a boring team more interesting to watch."

Frank gets the Knicks juiced up and he pumps up the volume..Of course the bottom line is if it translates into more wins..And there is only one way to find out..He has to play..alt


----------



## NYK4LIFE30 (Dec 7, 2003)

The right player is starting at the point guard spot and thats all that matters. Also according to rashidi u don't have to watch a player to judge his greatness. That statement alone proves this guy is crazy.


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

I think the thing that Williams brings to the floor mostly is his offensive ablitlies. Ward can penetrate but cant finish like Williams can. I saw WIlliams dunk in a recent game, I've never seen Eisley or ward do that while with the knicks. Williams pushes the ball up the court and if you dont D him he will penetrate and score. By doing this he makes teams D him and it creates open shots for everyone, after all we killed Miami and Orlando without Houston scoring 30 something points, mostly the scoring was balanced. 

Ward can come in and play good defense and hit three now and then. Honesly I tihnk Ward is a better back up than Eisley is, which was shown when Eisley was a DNP agianst the Heat last game. Unfortunately I think ward will be bought out because its eiasier than buying out Eisley. Eisley just dosent bring anything to the floor. He walks the ball up the court and usually relys on Houston in an Iso or KVH in an Iso for him to get his assists. If he gets mintues ofcourse he'll get assists but they dont mean anything if they dont get your team playing the way they need to to win. Williams is just a better team player, he even helps other players get assits by penetrating and passing to an open man who demands defense who in return then passes to anther open man who drains it. At least Ward brings defense to the court, eisley is like the walking dead, imo we need to buyout Eisley.

I also notice that when the knicks get rolling offensively with Williams in the game, it get the intensity level up and they play harder on the defensive end as well. Williams really helps the Team play better, while Esliey is just a safe way to get the ball up the court and into the hands of a star who has to then create for himself.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Also according to rashidi u don't have to watch a player to judge his greatness. That statement alone proves this guy is crazy.


Because as we all know, never getting a chance to watch Wilt and Russell must mean that they aren't among the greatest in NBA history.

Because obviously you can't judge things without seeing it with your own eyes.

Do I need to see a replay of Wilt scoring on someone to know that he was great? You're so one-dimensional.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

"Because obviously you can't judge things without seeing it with your own eyes."

You most certainly are entitled to make any judgement you want,just be prepared to be wrong the majority of the time

...But,answer me this..If you were a GM,would you draft a player without SEEING him play???

Would you make a trade for someone without SEEING him play??

Would you hire anyone without meeting them??????????

Sorry,I can NOT hold it in

USE YOUR NOODLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:sigh:


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Would you make a trade for someone without SEEING him play??


Would you trade for Jordan without seeing him play?

I never saw Jimmy King play (and you probably haven't even heard of him) but it doesn't take a massive amount of NBA knowledge to figure out who is better, Jordan or Jimmy King. 

Like I said, there's more than one way to evaluate a player. You don't need to see them. 

It's funny, so many people have never even seen Maciej Lampe, but so many people are so high on him. How can you be high on a player you've never seen?

Use your reading comprehension.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Are you also trying to tell me that a blind man is incapable of evaluating basketball talent?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I did not see the American Revolution, nor did I see the Civil War. Nor did I see World War 1 and 2. Does that mean it is impossible for me to know anything about these wars?

Use your noodle.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Rashidi,it is precisely this level of absurdity that you bring things to that completely negates your moments of statistical brilliance...You completely miss someones point,dig your heels in and try to justify your somewhat unusual stance..And I am trying to be kind....

Honestly rashid,you can not be this dumb..Stubborn yes,dumb no..


"It's funny, so many people have never even seen Maciej Lampe, but so many people are so high on him. How can you be high on a player you've never seen?"

There you go again,arguing with yourself..First you make one point,then contradict yourself completely...

maybe you arent just stubborn..

A lesson in life for you..All you can do in games and professions (trading,professional sports or gambling)where an element of luck is involved is stack the odds in your favor.Hopefuly enough ,where there is a positive expected return...Any GM who evaluates a player without seeing him play is doomed to fail..There will be a negative expected return and if the sampling size is large enough,a losing outcome is inevitable..


"Are you also trying to tell me that a blind man is incapable of evaluating basketball talent.....":no: 

Please tell me you did not make this statement,it was your 3 year old brother..You should be banned from the board for that ridiculous statement....

I cant even respond to that ..You are a basketball MORON...


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> Are you also trying to tell me that a blind man is incapable of evaluating basketball talent?


One of the greatest NBA scouts of all time was blind.

His name was... Rashidi


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Son Of Oak*

One of the greatest NBA scouts of all time was blind.

His name... Rashidi 

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh: 

Isnt there a moderator on this board who can moderate rashidi??


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Isnt there a moderator on this board who can moderate rashidi??


And I'm the ignorant one? What makes your opinion any better than mine?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*In moderation*

I meant moderate in jest....I enjoy your views on Bball....Biy every now and then you do "lose it",and come up with some very "interesting" statements

Originally posted by Rashidi!
Are you also trying to tell me that a blind man is incapable of evaluating basketball talent? 

That should have been moderated .....by you

And you are anything but ignorant,in fact I often defer to you....

I called you a basketball moron:grinning:


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Are you also trying to tell me that a blind man is incapable of evaluating basketball talent?


I will bet you a cup of noodles that a blind man could tell you who is better, Michael Jordan or Jimmy King.

You don't need eyes to see. 

I'll make it easier for you, since you seem to keep missing the point.

*Use your noodle*


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Is Rashidi layden in Disguise??*

you are impossible..how old are you anyway?? 

it is true once there is a huge disparity between two players such as Jordan and King EVEN a blind man could SEE the difference....Such as your boy layden..

But lets step back in time..Do you think a blind man could SEE the difference between Jordan and King in High school,before Jordan becam Jordan??Of course not,but someone who saw Jordans explosiveness,hands and potential could..And guess what.Dean Smith did not send a blind man to scout Michael Jordan in high school..And i can assure you,other than Layden there are very few blind GMs,scouts and coaches...

Your statement of never watching someone play but being able to evaluate their game is ridiculolus....Why have scouts??Why have pre draft workouts??? Why doesnt the guy with the best stats in high school become a great Pro???

Answer me this..Why couldnt Wilts awesome 76 er teams beat the Celts?? Or would you have to watch the series..

Persistence is admirable..Being a basketball MORON isnt:sigh:


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> But lets step back in time..Do you think a blind man could SEE the difference between Jordan and King in High school,before Jordan becam Jordan??Of course not,but someone who saw Jordans explosiveness,hands and potential could..And guess what.Dean Smith did not send a blind man to scout Michael Jordan in high school..And i can assure you,other than Layden there are very few blind GMs,scouts and coaches...


1. Jordan was not Jordan in high school.

2. You are too funny. You don't have to scout Bernard King or Michael Jordan to know which is better. They aren't 16 year old boys. Their careers have already passed. All you have to do is look back on their respective careers. A blind man can do that because blind men can read.


----------



## Phate01 (Jun 6, 2003)

1. Jordan WAS Jordan in high school just a slightly less refined version. I mean he was most definately Jordan by name...and the seeds of Jordan the player were already sewn. 


Geez why do u think players become good? Its genetics and practice. I mean Jordan had the potential to become what he was from birth and with the right coaching they become great. It is the people and the so called "non blind" people who find these unrefined gems and create the perfect specimen. 

Or are what you saying is that Jordan was in fact not Jordan in high school was he really called......Willie Wonka? Then he appeared in the NBA like a mirage and Jordan was created? I think not. I think you shouldn't just argue for the sake of it. Truth has a good point.

2.I know their careers have passed but when understanding WHY they were good it is useful to look at their highschool careers and their play before then. If you are a scout u aren't aware of every player in existence so therefore u HAVE to scout players in order to find them. They dont just fall into your lap.

Thats my two cents anyhow


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 2. You are too funny. You don't have to scout Bernard King or Michael Jordan to know which is better. They aren't 16 year old boys. Their careers have already passed. All you have to do is look back on their respective careers. A blind man can do that because blind men can read.


The best a blind man can do is be a historian of sorts, or parrot back the wisdom of others. And even historians most trust eye-witness accounts. But it takes sight to be a scout and prognosticate.

But you know that, right? Be realistic for just one moment. Just how many blind NBA scouts do you think there are out there? Or ever have been?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Riddle me this one,Rashidi.....

Who is/was a better player at 19?

Michael Jordan or Lebron James???

And who do you think will have a more prolific career when its all said and done?

And tell me how you decided the outcome.....

Also,have you ever heard the expression"He makes his teamates better??" what does that mean to you

You are also the master of evasion...Why couldnt Wilt Chamberlins awesome 76er teams dominate the Celtics?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Geez why do u think players become good? Its genetics and practice. I mean Jordan had the potential to become what he was from birth and with the right coaching they become great. It is the people and the so called "non blind" people who find these unrefined gems and create the perfect specimen.


Jordan was not expected to be the amazing scorer that he was. He was taken 3rd because he was a good defensive player for a collegian, and his winning jumper also elevated his value.

Were it known that he would develop into the amazing scorer he became, the Blazers obviously would not have passed him for Sam Bowie. Apparantly "scouting" is not foolproof.



> Why couldnt Wilt Chamberlins awesome 76er teams dominate the Celtics?


How many hall of famers were on Russell's team again? Chamberlain didn't have any great teammates until he went to LA.



> Who is/was a better player at 19?
> Michael Jordan or Lebron James???


I don't know much about Jordan's collegiate career, but I would stilll guess Jordan. Lebron's contributions to his team have been greatly overstated. If Rick Brunson averaged 40+ minutes per game on a crappy team, he'd put up big numbers too. Ron Mercer put up 19 ppg on a crappy Bulls team in 41 mpg. Where is Mercer now? Putting up 5 ppg in 13 mpg for the Spurs. How about Ricky Davis, Maurice Taylor, Issac Austin, Bison Dele, Charles Smith, and every other player that was given full control of a crappy team? How many of those players were really as good as advertised?

I think Melo is definitely better than Lebron right now, because Melo doesn't have the complete control that Lebron does. Who is the 2nd best player on Lebron's team? "No D Big Z"? Eric Williams? Tony Battie? Not hard to put up big numbers when you're getting all the minutes and shots.

I don't see Lebron making his teammates better either. Darius Miles has effectively been taken out of the rotation. Gee, Lebron really made him better. Where is Ricky Davis? Out of town. Where is Big Z? About to join him.

So yep, my guess is that Jordan at 19 likely was better than Lebron at 19. If Jordan was able to score 28 ppg on a bad team at 21, he likely could have put up 18 at 19 too.



> And who do you think will have a more prolific career when its all said and done?


Depends on who their GM can surround Lebron with. It's not like superstars are guaranteed championships when they are drafted. Kevin Garnett and Tracy McGrady have yet to get out of the first round, while Kobe Bryant has gotten to ride Shaq's coattails to 3 championships. Lebron gets compared to Magic alot, but Lebron wasn't drafted by a team that had Kareem.


----------

