# Knicks lose to Bobcats!



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

Knicks play just awful and lose to the Bobcats. What a joke. We have the easiest run of bball for this team all year and we still cant win when we need to, unbelievable!

Post your rants here.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

*Baiting*


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

I dont think itwas as bad as your making out,the bobcats played exceptionally well tonight,on a different day the knicks would have probably won this,simple fact is if the opposition shoot 60% from the field and 55% from the 3 for the whole game then there gonna be pretty hard to beat

good game again from steph and eddy 

jeffries needsto gtfo out of nyc 

nate plays 6 mins and picks up a T,he needsto gtfo too 

Lee was quiet but still remains a great prospect

q-rich played excellently 

all is not lost IMO


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Knicks play just awful and lose to the Bobcats. What a joke. We have the easiest run of bball for this team all year and we still cant win when we need to, unbelievable!
> 
> Post your rants here.



I'm probably as pissed off as you right now because I was actually at the game screaming at Crawford for screwing up both his defensive assignments (Carroll and Anderson). Fact of the matter is that as bad as people think the Bobcats are, they have managed to play some solid ball for a young team. Beyond that, there are just some team's that have another's number. The Bobcats have ours and consistently seem to outperform us despite us being the better team. It happens all across the league. For instance, the Hawks always seem to give the Spurs fits when they visit Atlanta but they are far from the caliber team the Spurs are. Just another loss we got to get through but I am disappointed since the division was ours for the taking.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

This Game was the Bobcats first time giving an oponent a "Good Ole Ase Whupping". 
The Knicks took this Whupping good too, in their own backyard. 
Mama should be real proud of their Knick Sons. 

I cant even put the blame on Jefferies who played very little minutes in the second half. 
However, I can say this about Coach Isiah Thomas, "Isiah is another Coach that can not coach a team with alot of talented players.". There was no reason why Balkman did not come into the game in the second half along with David Lee. 
I would have put Lee, Balkman, and Nate in the game at the same time taking out Crawford, Frye, and Curry in the middle of the third quarter to confuse Okafor, May, and Breezic. 
Plus to show how long this Knick Roster is.
Nate task would've been easy, to get into Felton's head. 

Marbury & Crawford played another game with each getting 42 minutes each. 
Take the chains off of Nate Robinson, and give him two offensive Plays for each position. This Knick Team could use the defensive havoc he provides by getting into the oposition backcourt heads. 
The Bobcats only had one player running their Point last night (Felton), if the Knicks had the fresh legs of David Lee, Balkman, and Nate on the court running in the third quarter every chance they got then it would've been obvious that Felton would've been looking for Carrol & Anderson on every play in the 4th quarter (the Bobcats were on the end of a Back to Back game). 

Maybe this Lost was the Media playing with the Knick-Players head about Webber joining the Team, and Isiah confirming it to the players before the game, cause the only players that was struggling to WIN on this Knick Team last night was the Main TWO Starters this season (Marbury & Curry)...


----------



## Husstla (Nov 5, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Knicks play just awful and lose to the Bobcats. What a joke. We have the easiest run of bball for this team all year and we still cant win when we need to, unbelievable!
> 
> Post your rants here.


You are forgetting that Bobcats have beaten better teams than the Knicks.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

im with Tru......


we lose to the 2nd worse team in the league just when we are in the mix for the lead in the division....


I WAS PISSED OFF YESTERDAY NIGHT!!!!!........:azdaja:


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> You are forgetting that Bobcats have beaten better teams than the Knicks.


I really dont know what that means though....cause the knicks have beaten much better teams then the bobcats.


----------



## nutmeged3 (Apr 11, 2005)

8 of our 11 wins are against division leaders...the talent is there were just extremley inconsistant


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Add the fact that now Bobcats is the McInnis team...


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*NO excuse*

No matter what the point totals were, there was zippity doodah intensity. Marbury and JC both put forth very little defensive effort the whole game, along with Eddie. Frye, surprisingly, played hard defensively all game, but was pretty much alone in his effort, along with Lee. This game was lost because of lack of concentration and effort. Kiyaman is right on this one. Some of these other guys need to get a chance, like Collins and Balkman. If you don't play defense, just sit.

Our guards lack of defense killed us. I understand when a guy gets hot but these guys were getting wide open looks all night. Just horrible.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> NO excuse


I totally agree with that title dog. I dont want to hear how well the bobcats played and so on. It was a game we should have won without a problem. Yet this team looks for ways to not win. (This time by not playing defense)

P.S Anyone else really not feeling JC this year? It feels like he is just not the right player for this team.

I honestly wouldnt mind seeing JC outta here on the next thing smoking.:cheers:


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

> Quote:
> You are forgetting that Bobcats have beaten better teams than the Knicks.
> I really dont know what that means though....cause the knicks have beaten much better teams then the bobcats.
> __________________



what he is saying is that the bobcats have wins @ det, vs. det, vs. orl, vs. utah, vs. lal. people who call this loss an embarassment need to respect the opponent more, because the bobcats are an nba squad that plays hard.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> I totally agree with that title dog. I dont want to hear how well the bobcats played and so on. It was a game we should have won without a problem. Yet this team looks for ways to not win. (This time by not playing defense)
> 
> P.S Anyone else really not feeling JC this year? It feels like he is just not the right player for this team.
> 
> I honestly wouldnt mind seeing JC outta here on the next thing smoking.:cheers:


I still believe the loss was not that bad. Like KConn pointed out, the Bobcats are not that bad a team to think we're better than losing to.

As far as Jamal Crawford is concerned, I am right there with you. Both Derek Anderson and Matt Carroll we're his defensive assignments and both hit damn near career high's. I'd like to trade him but the problem is we lose his ability to find Curry. I think we have to really sit down and weigh the benefits of his scoring/Curry relationship vs. his piss poor defense.If and only if Crawford comes off the bench would I support keeping him around. He could just serve as a spark off the bench which generally don't stay in the game long enough to be a major concern defensively. If he has to start then I believe we should trade him. The question is, for who?


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

I'm not to crazy about Jamal Crawford but! 
Jamal Crawford plays his best Offense with Marbury & Curry. 
And Crawford plays his best Defense with David Lee, Balkman, and Nate. 

President Isiah Thomas threw his entire Rotation off track (a wrench) by making (or really Forcing) these players to add Jared Jefferies into a rotation that was just starting to "JELL" together. 
How this affected the talents of Curry, Lee, Frye, Q.Rich, Balkman, Crawford, Marbury, and Nate, the President Isiah Thomas "DO NOT CARE" because since Jared Jefferies first game with the Knicks he has average 30 MPG. 

The Knicks has been playing as if they do not have a BENCH (Bench-Players that co-exist with each other and the team).


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*The Knicks did not lose to the Bobcats, the Bobcats (Hill) out Coached President Isiah Thomas for 3 of the 4 quarters.*


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Bad, bad loss*

I don't care how you spin the Bobcat wins against top teams. The reality is that these other teams more than likely took the Bobcats lightly based on their own success and the Bobcats record of futility. The NY'ers were (are) in no position to take ANYONE lightly. Bad loss, spin doctors.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kiyaman said:


> I'm not to crazy about Jamal Crawford but!
> Jamal Crawford plays his best Offense with Marbury & Curry.
> And Crawford plays his best Defense with David Lee, Balkman, and Nate.
> 
> ...



Your starting lineup is what win games, not your bench. Bench's help you preserve your starters until the playoffs. I understand why Isiah has shortened his rotation and extended the playing time of his starters.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Not neccessarily true...*

Your bench can win OR lose games for you. Since all teams play reserves, it is only logical that you can win if your reserves (bench) out plays the opponents bench by a large enough margin, even if your starters were out-performed.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Think again...*



alphaorange said:


> Your bench can win OR lose games for you. Since all teams play reserves, it is only logical that you can win if your reserves (bench) out plays the opponents bench by a large enough margin, even if your starters were out-performed.



Many of the deeper teams in the league tend to place less emphasis on developing a strong bench but rather a strong starting lineup. You look at the Dallas Mavericks of old would stock-pile talented players on there roster. They have not really become a threat until they placed more emphasis on developing more complete players to start and utilize a much shorter rotation. I've been watching ESPN the past couple of days and it appears every game that there starting lineup is putting up at the very least 75ppg. That says alot for you right there.

The Detriot Pistons had also proven last year that it's your starting lineup that wins in the regular season for you. That's how they ended up with the most wins in the league yet could not finish a poorer Miami Heat squad.


Come to think of it, coaches tend to limit there rotations when they want to win. Why do they do that? Your starting lineup win's you games; your bench just preserves your starters the moment you definately need them to win. All the successful teams practice this art, so why haven't you noticed?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Wrong again*

Detroit lost because they hired an offensive coach. Defense wins in the playoffs and they were just not a great defesive team. Your assumption about shortening the bench is just that...an assumption. It is absolutely dependent on the team and coach. The Suns, for example, used everyone they could, last year. The Spurs and Mavs also go deep.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Wrong again*



alphaorange said:


> Detroit lost because they hired an offensive coach. Defense wins in the playoffs and they were just not a great defesive team. Your assumption about shortening the bench is just that...an assumption. It is absolutely dependent on the team and coach. The Suns, for example, used everyone they could, last year. The Spurs and Mavs also go deep.


their defense gave up 90 points a game, good for a top 5 in the league.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Wrong again*



alphaorange said:


> Detroit lost because they hired an offensive coach. Defense wins in the playoffs and they were just not a great defesive team. Your assumption about shortening the bench is just that...an assumption. It is absolutely dependent on the team and coach. The Suns, for example, used everyone they could, last year. The Spurs and Mavs also go deep.


That's funny to me because aside from Jerry Stackhouse and a center off the bench, who else did the Mavericks really turn to in the playoffs? No one.

As for the Pistons, KConn addressed the matter so I don't have to comment. It's laughable though that you somehow are implying the Pistons did not play defense or good defense last year. I mean, they may not have been the great defensive team in that they were in the past but they still could defend.

Also, if you review the Suns season last year, they were ravashed by injuries. That was the key reason why they had to use so many people on there bench. Aside from Leonardo Barbosa, who really played on there bench during the playoffs? Remember, Tim Thomas started due to Amare's absence and Kurt's health. 

Although these teams have deep bench's, it seems like they don't utilize them very much in the playoffs. I'd like to know what you think about that, knowing that now.


----------

