# Who could we get for Marbury?



## dynamiks

I don't see ant player's on Marbury's level, that we could get for Marbury. If you have any Ideas just post them.


----------



## jc76ers

trade marbury for future picks. start jamal at point.

its not like the knicks are going to be contenders this year so trade him for a bunch of picks next year.


----------



## DWest Superstar

Yogi Stewart maybe?


----------



## Damian Necronamous

Vlade, George and Slava!!!

:banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## Damian Necronamous

Nah, but if the Knicks do trade Marbury, they need to send a bad contract (Rose or Taylor) along with him.


----------



## Boshinator_LBJ

a bunch of basketballs and maybe a few pairs of Reebok :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :yes: :yes: :laugh: :laugh: :gbanana: :gbanana: :gbanana:


----------



## USSKittyHawk

Boshinator_LBJ said:


> a bunch of basketballs and maybe a few pairs of Reebok :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :yes: :yes: :laugh: :laugh: :gbanana: :gbanana: :gbanana:


Sorry Bosh, I think you may be talking about your team. You guys got a bunch of basketballs and a pair of Reeboxs from that Vince trade. Oh yea, and one kidney was also included in that deal. :rofl:


----------



## Thebiggestknicksfan

Boshinator_LBJ said:


> a bunch of basketballs and maybe a few pairs of Reebok :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :yes: :yes: :laugh: :laugh: :gbanana: :gbanana: :gbanana:



There are more emoticons than words in your post. Does that make you feel stupid?


----------



## TRON

Boshinator_LBJ a.k.a. Dr. Lebroon or whatever you want to be called

I'm guessing your about 12 years old, 13 tops...get a life kid

BTW...this guy is not a Raptors fan, he's just trying to make Raptors fans look stupid


----------



## Unique

IMO you guys shouldnt trade him i think with the good coaching of lary he will become better then he already is and i can tottaly see NY in the playoffs in the next couple of years....


----------



## XenoSphere

Trade him for a good pick, back up PG and maybe a decent SF, if you can get that much. :dead: Start Crawford and Richardson in the backcourt, maybe Ariza at the 3, Sweetney and James/Frye man the front court.


----------



## NYK101

were not trading marbury


----------



## Noodfan

TRON said:


> Boshinator_LBJ a.k.a. Dr. Lebroon or whatever you want to be called
> 
> I'm guessing your about 12 years old, 13 tops...get a life kid
> 
> BTW...this guy is not a Raptors fan, he's just trying to make Raptors fans look stupid


Your avatar is great


----------



## Da Grinch

an idea that comes to mind is magliore and brown for marbury, sweetney and butler.

another is marbury, butler and sweetney for gasol and wright.


----------



## son of oakley

Da Grinch said:


> an idea that comes to mind is magliore and brown for marbury, sweetney and butler.
> 
> another is marbury, butler and sweetney for gasol and wright.



Good deals for Knicks but I don't see those teams wanting to trade solid bigmen for a tweener guard. I'd love to be wrong though.


----------



## kamego

If the Knicks get an offer to get Mag or Gasol, they better trade Marbury. A big man is very hard to find in this league. I'm not dogging on SM's talent but I think it's much easier to find a solid PG then C.


----------



## Abigfanoftheknicks

kamego said:


> If the Knicks get an offer to get Mag or Gasol, they better trade Marbury. A big man is very hard to find in this league. I'm not dogging on SM's talent but I think it's much easier to find a solid PG then C.



I agree, and I'm glad that you started coming to our boards to help elevate the discussion. 

Grinch, you have some good trade ideas, while I don't think Memphis is going to let Gasol go ( they seem to be retooling their team to finally make him the #1 option) Mags is in my estimation a future all star and doesn't seem to have any mental baggage, or holes in his game that he doesn't work hard on filling.

This whole idea of using steph at the two just bugs me because we are so soft defensively, everyone about the AI comparision, but I don't see that as valide because AI had a good defensive pointguard, a decent post defender at the 4, and probably the best defensive center in the league, backing him up. Come to think of it the whole team was full of good defenders.

Therefore you can't come close to comparing that team to the current New York Knick team. As such moving Steph to the two , and a nearly completely porous front and backcourt doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me. This is poorly written because Its been a long day. I hope everyone catches the drift.


----------



## Debt Collector

kamego said:


> If the Knicks get an offer to get Mag or Gasol, they better trade Marbury. A big man is very hard to find in this league. I'm not dogging on SM's talent but I think it's much easier to find a solid PG then C.


gasol, maybe, magloire, no way, unless we're getting back JR smith or someone like that too. magloire is not even close to being good enough to consider swapping for marbury. just because a big man is hard to find doesnt mean you should trade for pennies on the dollar just to get one.


----------



## truth

i think marbury is bordering on being untradeable...its not a knock against him,but he has a huge contract and has a bit of a tarnished rep...

The only team I could see having any interest would be Dallas..


----------



## Da Grinch

dealing marbury for in principle gasol or magliore is a talent downgrade, marbury's problems are well known but its mostly mentality , his game as far as skills are top notch, larry brown may be able to help him in that regard .

Brown mostly teaches and enforces defense but his main gift for teaching offense is that he tends to focus a player or 2 and harness his ability, while getting the rest of the team to play together as a unit.

in detroit he helped billups become a better point guard and helped ben wallace avoid being such a weakness on offense.

in philly he turned AI loose at the 2 and made eric snow into passable player on both sides of the ball where he has faultered without him.

even as far back as indy he is the one who made smits a factor, before that he was a 7'4 nothing who played soft and often lost his starting job and was benched for the likes of greg dreiling and lasalle thompson.

i mentioned those deals but i wouldn't do them , at least not yet, personally i feel crawford is more of a point guard than marbury because he is more than willing to give away shots in return for control of the offense, in addition he is a more effective scorer with the ball in his hands as a point guard because thats how he is more comfortable.

i tend to believe the switch brown talked about for defensive reasons as well, both crawford and marbury have played significantly better defense in previous years.

marbury and crawford on defense gave up efg of .482 and .520 respectively in the 2004-05 season . bulls fans for the most part cant bring themselves to admit , at one point crawford was the team's best defender at pg in 2002-03 and played decent defense at the 2 in 2003-04. marbury in 2002-03 was one of the better pg defenders in the league, you dont lose that kind of ability , he has simply not put the effort forth to duplicate it. that will have to change.

i believe what will happen is Crawford will take the 1 on offense lessening the burden on what marbury has to do on offense, when he isn't trying to score he will be able to take plays off , something he couldn't do at all last season. in addition he will play less minutes with nate and Q there will be no reason to play marbury 40 minutes a game . It will also save him to play better defense of which he is very capable of doing. At the same time crawford will be a better defender because he too basically didn't put out the effort, if that doesn't change he may be the one dealt but in my opinion he is a surer bet to improve his defense significantly. 

magliore is a good player and a past all star , but he really isn't what you would call a legitamite star basketball player, on a very good team he would probably be the #3 guy.

gasol is a star player in name but he avg. about 7 rebounds a game and has a rep for soft play,he is still young , he can improve and still should improve but out of these 2, i would much rather have magliore even if most people consider gasol the better player, he plays both sides of the ball he boards and defends the lane ,and can score although not as well as gasol. he is to me what a post player is supposed to be.

marbury is the kind of player that can win games no matter who he is playing against, you dont get rid of that without good reason, and gasol and magliore aren't on his level, but the would fulfill a need on the knicks interior and in absence of marbury working out , that can be almost as good.


----------



## dynamiks

So what do u think of PJ brown, Claxon and Maglorie for Marbury and 2 condtional draft picks. That looks really good to me. We could trade or release Mo' Taylor. We could have Frye playing the 4. (since he is not strong enough for 5). Also that would have three solid centers we would have.

starting line-up
pg-Nate Robinson
Sg-Crawford
SF-Q-rich
PF-Mike Sweetney/Channing Frye (whose ever better)
C-Magloire (as back ups) PJ Brown James


----------



## Natesbury126

We dont need to add anymore old people, pg's, magloire is so-so.


----------



## BIGsHOTBOY12345

There are many players we can get for marbury. a nice group would be Darius miles, and damon stoudamire. Damon got a big contract and we get a power forward, and they get a fast young point guard


----------



## dynamiks

I don't see Miles in a knicks uniform, with Q-Rich, Marbury, Ariza, Crawford, Thomas, and Marbury. I don't see his weak game working out in the knicks team. Also, we would really be getting ripped off we got Dmiles and Damon stoudmire.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Hey, you need big men? We got big men. How about Blount & Lafrentz for Marbury. :biggrin:


----------



## The True Essence

can we kill this topic? marbury is here to stay...thats it... him and zeke are next door freakin neighbors.

considering everyone thinks marbury is some crappy shooting guard, we cant get anything good for him anyways.


----------



## alphadog

*Penny....*

You have got to be smarter than that....right? Friends...neighbors....it means nothing. This is a business, and if LB(especially) and IT determine that SM should not be a piece of the puzzle, then he will be traded. Don't forget, IT's job is not exactly rock solid...especially if Browns health doesn't enable him to coach. He would then be in line for a prime job as GM or higher. IT has to make some solid moves this year and show progress.


----------



## truth

PennyHardaway said:


> can we kill this topic? marbury is here to stay...thats it... him and zeke are next door freakin neighbors.
> 
> considering everyone thinks marbury is some crappy shooting guard, we cant get anything good for him anyways.


Penny you are a bit confused..I think Steph is a good point guard..I think Steph will be an AWESOME shooting guard.

Here is a short quote from Stephen A Smith



> “He needs to be a leader as well, for sure. But as far as his talent? Watch Larry Brown put him at the ‘two’ and watch him average 25 points a game with his eyes closed.”


----------



## alphadog

*Truth.....*

The same Stephen A$$wipe Smith who thinks T.O. is in the right? Please....you waffle more than IHOP. First you love Marbury...then you hate him...then you want to trade him...then keep him..but at the 2....


My head is spinning trying to keep up with you but it's cheap entertainment...


----------



## truth

*Re: Truth.....*



alphadog said:


> The same Stephen A$$wipe Smith who thinks T.O. is in the right? Please....you waffle more than IHOP. First you love Marbury...then you hate him...then you want to trade him...then keep him..but at the 2....
> 
> My head is spinning trying to keep up with you but it's cheap entertainment...


Alfa,are you familiar with football and contracts??Just curious...
T.O is in the wrong contractually,but the structure of the contacts and legal obligations in football are ridiculously skewed in favor of the owners.....

And for your info Dogbreath,I have wanted Steph at the 2 for a loooong time...The problem is no previous coach had the authority to make the switch and Steph knew it and took full advantage of it..

Secondly,Dogbreath,I was in favor of the trade for marbury as we were and still are in cap hell.It made sense for both sides..

Thirdly,Dogbreath,he is untradable..The bid -offer spread is too large...

Fourthly,Dogbreath,Crawford at the 1,steph at the 2 makes all the sense in the world,especially from a defensive point of view..

Now get back to work and make my waffles with real maple syrup


----------



## John

TRON said:


> Boshinator_LBJ a.k.a. Dr. Lebroon or whatever you want to be called
> 
> I'm guessing your about 12 years old, 13 tops...get a life kid
> 
> BTW...this guy is not a Raptors fan, he's just trying to make Raptors fans look stupid


Well, F U too.


----------



## Brolic

dont know for sure if LB wants mebury out, he is your best player but LB also loves veterans. Dont expect IT's idea of staying young to mesh with LB's plans for a good roster


----------



## The True Essence

mebury? you thought that one up yourself? you should be a comedian my man


----------



## truth

kamaze said:


> dont know for sure if LB wants mebury out, he is your best player but LB also loves veterans. Dont expect IT's idea of staying young to mesh with LB's plans for a good roster




mebury????thats pretty #$%^&%$ing funny....


----------



## jasonC

You should try to get someone for him, thats for sure because the guy seriously sucks at helping teams win games. Sure he can play basketball but not the kind of basketball the puts you in the winning column. He was the Suns point guard before Nash right? They won what, 29 games? Replace him with Steve Nash and they win 60 games and go to the Western Conference Finals. Everytime Marbury leaves a team, that team gets better.


----------



## The True Essence

marbury was traded like 20 games into the season, thats why they sucked. and when he did play, he didnt have stoudemire.

with stephon, a rookie stoudemire, a healthy squad...they won 44 games, and almost beat the eventual champion spurs in the first round. so please, think before you speak

nash had a 3rd year amare, a blossomed joe johnson, and q rich. marbury didnt have those.


----------



## jasonC

Since when do the Knicks play the Spurs in the 1st round? I thought the Spurs were in the Western Conference. Yeah and when Nash was out with an injury this past season, that team with a blossomed Joe Johnson and a 3rd year AMare couldnt win a game to save their pathetic lives.


----------



## The True Essence

when he was a SUN!!!!!!!!

i think you are clueless my man.

"Yeah and when Nash was out with an injury this past season, that team with a blossomed Joe Johnson and a 3rd year AMare couldnt win a game to save their pathetic lives."

same without marbury. they only won 29 games right?


----------



## The True Essence

"Since when do the Knicks play the Spurs in the 1st round?"

when marbury was a SUN!!!! with rookie amare, he won 44 games, made the playoffs. you act as if they were always bad with Steph. they were bad when amare was injured early on the next season, so they traded steph for hot garbage and lost an assload of games.


----------



## jasonC

Youre right, my fault on that one. I looked at that and was like what, Spurs in the 1st round? When he was a SUN, now I get it. Besides that though, Minnesota got better when Steph left and so did New Jersey.


----------



## The True Essence

yes, but jersey added a healthy martin, a healthy van horn, rookie richard Jefferson, rookie jason collins.

minnesota never really got any better. they always stayed a One and done team from the first round.

im not sayin steph is better then kidd or nash...im jus sayin..


----------



## USSKittyHawk

jasonC said:


> Youre right, my fault on that one. I looked at that and was like what, Spurs in the 1st round? When he was a SUN, now I get it. Besides that though, Minnesota got better when Steph left and so did New Jersey.


Minny didn't get that much better, they just got out of the 1st round 2 seasons ago. With the NJ situation it was really a lot of injuries with that team, to Jason Williams and a lot of chemistry problems. Steph didn't like Keith that much and the feeling was mutal. I'm unfamiliar with the situation with the Suns, but they did get better to say the least.


----------



## USSKittyHawk

jasonC said:


> You should try to get someone for him, thats for sure because the guy seriously sucks at helping teams win games. Sure he can play basketball but not the kind of basketball the puts you in the winning column.


How about seeing how Steph can adjust to having a decent coach for once, who will make sure Steph "plays the right way". Before we jump the gun and say let's trade him. Give the kid one more chance.


----------



## truth

Kitty said:


> How about seeing how Steph can adjust to having a decent coach for once, who will make sure Steph "plays the right way". Before we jump the gun and say let's trade him. Give the kid one more chance.


Just stick him at the 2 and we will be fine......Hes a better scorer than AI,he just needs the green light...


----------



## Brolic

he doesnt have the defense of AI


----------



## The True Essence

thanks for telling us that. you mean, AI is better at playing the passing lanes. cause iverson doesnt play man d well... otherwise eric snow wouldnt take the tough defensive assignments, regardless of it being the pg or sg...


----------



## Brolic

break it down however you want AI the better defender


----------



## USSKittyHawk

kamaze said:


> break it down however you want AI the better defender


So what if AI is a better defender than Steph? The point of the manner is Truth stated that Steph should move to the 2, and was stating the fact that AI did the same thing. Which free him up on his point guard duties so he can focus more on scoring and is given the green light to do so. That was the point he was making...so stating AI is a better defender holds no merit with that particular post, because everyone knows that already. Please tell us something we don't know.


----------



## son of oakley

offense/defense, whatever. AI puts out a lot more for intangiables than Steph. Every game he's diving, skidding, leaping, scuffing, scraping, and clawing for wins. 

I can count Steph's floor burns from last year on three or four fingers, while AI gives you that every game. That difference adds up big.


----------



## Da Grinch

son of oakley said:


> offense/defense, whatever. AI puts out a lot more for intangiables than Steph. Every game he's diving, skidding, leaping, scuffing, scraping, and clawing for wins.
> 
> I can count Steph's floor burns from last year on three or four fingers, while AI gives you that every game. That difference adds up big.


its all perspective , iverson can inspire his teammates with his tough gritty play ....or he can tear a team apart with his indifference to practice . it all depends on the team and the ime.


----------



## son of oakley

Da Grinch said:


> its all perspective , iverson can inspire his teammates with his tough gritty play ....or he can tear a team apart with his indifference to practice . it all depends on the team and the ime.


Agreed. I'm under the impression he put his tardiness behind him, but if not it is a problem. 

As are Marbury's massages during practice habits, and teammates wanting to kick his butt.


----------



## truth

son of oakley said:


> Agreed. I'm under the impression he put his tardiness behind him, but if not it is a problem.
> 
> As are Marbury's massages during practice habits, and teammates wanting to kick his butt.


oak,i remember the days when we were big marbury supporters....  

i still support him...at the 2


----------



## son of oakley

truth said:


> oak,i remember the days when we were big marbury supporters....
> 
> i still support him...at the 2


Truth, I liked him till I saw him and his prima donna ways tear this team apart like a muscleman would a phonebook. But I don't like his playmaking skills, and without that he's just an undersized 2 with a suspect 3 pt shot, nonchalant D, and unproven skills off the ball.

But, Isiah cleared out his detractor teammates (KVH, KT, JYD, Penny) so off court chemistry should be better, and it's the Larry Brown era now, so new beginnings... anything is possible.

Problem is I think Larry will try to blend Steph in as "one of the guys", rather than a focal point (which I support), but at that point, do we really need his 19m/yr contract? Will he be a better 2 than JC or Q at 6M/yr? Are we killing a chance for the likes of a Bron, Wade, or Bosh down the road just to experiment with blending Marbury in at the 2? 

9 years into his career and we don't know his natural position, or if he even has one.

I just wish we were working thru the draft, cultivating home grown talent, building around a frontcourt stud, and then bringing in a legitimate premium FA down the road. Instead we are stuffed to the gills with these "potential" guys, including Steph, who Isiah thinks can turn it around for him, when they couldn't elsewhere.

Mo, TT, James, Steph... reclamation projects like them are not the guys who turn me on now. Nate, Frye, Sweets, Ariza, Lee... those are my boys.

Yah, I did an about face on Steph, I admit it. Maybe I will again, but he's got to earn my love this time. First time he got it on reputation (the good one) alone, and because I was starved for something to believe in. But I don't believe in him now. I find him needy, divisive and almost irrelevant.


----------



## Brolic

I hope yu realize this isnt the first time a team has thought about playing him at 2guard. Its obvious he's a scorer and could care less about the other players, 8 ssissts is all he cares about. Thats why people call him mebury.


----------



## The True Essence

im sure he doesnt care at all about any of the players on his team. and this is cause you know him personally. and he told you, that all he cares about is 8 assists. 

where do you get this stuff?


----------



## Brolic

*You're a Knick fan right? * you have to be blind not to see merbury's selfish and only cares about his stats. Why do you think he has all this talent yet cant stay on a team.


----------



## The True Essence

they said the same thing about jordan. hes selfish, not a team guy, just a stat guy. they only said that cause his teams sucked. when marbury starts winning games, they will stop saying hes a selfish player. if they ever start winning, that is.


----------



## Brolic

cant believe your usin the greatest player ive ever seen in an argument about Mebury.


----------



## The True Essence

heaven forbid someone uses another player as an example. ill throw out some more names- Tracy Mcgrady was labelled selfish, then when the rockets started winning "its a new tracy!" when really its just tracy doin the same stuff with the team winning. Same with Iverson, Jamison, abdur rahim........jus stat players, dont care to win, they cant win.

you obviously cant be objectionable, cause your calling him mebury. you are not serious, your jus tryna get people riled up with your "nickname" of stephon.


----------



## kamego

Lots of argueing here but it's offtopic lol. It doesn't matter who's better AI or Marbury since AI still plays for philly...


----------



## Brolic

Jordan, Tmac are guards they're *supposed * to shoot its the point guard's responsibility to make everything right 
I always call him Mebury, like I said it fits him perfectly for his style


----------



## truth

> Problem is I think Larry will try to blend Steph in as "one of the guys", rather than a focal point (which I support), but at that point, do we really need his 19m/yr contract? Will he be a better 2 than JC or Q at 6M/yr? Are we killing a chance for the likes of a Bron, Wade, or Bosh down the road just to experiment with blending Marbury in at the 2?


Oak,the real problem is,I think the guy is UNTRADEABLE,for the very reasons you mentioned...At 19 per year,hes just too expensive and Marbury is developing a rep in the league as a bit of a malcontent and primadonna..

I find it very telling that Atlanta would rather have JJ,a guy who has never really played point ,run their squad as opposed to going after Marbury....

Marbury at the 2 makes sense if Coach Brown wants JC in the lineup.Once upon a time I thought JC could play the 2 and become a RIP type player,but there is a much better chance that JC becomes a turbo Billups....Marbury at the 2 makes sense from a team perspective,moreso than an individual...The real question is D.....


----------



## USSKittyHawk

kamaze said:


> Jordan, Tmac are guards they're *supposed *to shoot its the point guard's responsibility to make everything right
> I always call him Mebury, like I said it fits him perfectly for his style


:topic:


----------



## alphadog

*Truth.....*

As you know, I have never been a Marbury fan. I find his style very entertaining and a big hit at the playground courts but......I can't think of a single guy that plays like him that has led his team to a title. His game is not conducive to winning..period. All the guys (including you) that think he is going to be something better and different by playing a different position are basing your beliefs on something that none of us has seen. He is NOT an LB type of player and don't be fooled by the quotes you read in the paper saying otherwise. These days everything said is calculated. If you think about what you are expecting, you are going to realize that you will be disappointed. There are facts that must be respected: He is a catalyst to undermining team chemistry (it's been well documented about the devisiveness that occurs everywhere he goes and there are no farerwell parties thrown for him when he leaves), he does not play hard at defense, his body is breaking down, and he is not a very good deep shooter and every team needs to have 2-3 dependable long range gunners. Last year was his best %wise and it was nothing to brag about from 3. Truth, yoou'll tire of Marbury hoisting up shots after a short time. His quote about having the green light as a shooter if he plays the 2 was very scary. 

I just wish the supporters would use facts, not twisted, meaningless stats and wishful thinking when analysing him. He is what he is....a gifted player with a huge ego who should never be the focal point of a team. BTW, comparing him to Jordan is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I followed his entire career while as an adult and never heard the rumors and negative inuendo associated with superstarbury. Big dog would be a better comparison in many ways.

He is, indeed, tradable, though. Van Ex was sort of in the same boat years ago but always managed to be moved. If LB can't make it work (and I've got very serious doubts), they will find a way to move him...IT's pal and neighbor notwithstanding.


----------



## The True Essence

"He is NOT an LB type of player"

oh and rasheed wallace was? what the hell is a LB type of player? larry brown should mold these guys like he did in detroit. 

and how about Isiah Thomas?he had a similar game to stephon


----------



## USSKittyHawk

I'm not going to sit here and give insight on Steph not being "LB's type of player" until the season begins, and when we reach the month of Jan. Then I can probably say if all the Steph haters are right. Until then....I'm just going to sit back and watch the Knicks begin; hopefully a productive season. As I followed Steph's career he never really had a stern coach since he came in the league...who fits LB's style. If he performs well under LB by the all-star break and Zeke feels the need to trade him now while his trade value is high to improve the team so be it. 

Side Note: I didn't think Billups was LB's type of player either, but he did clash with him in the beginning and learned to embrace his style of coaching. Which won him a Finals MVP award. Like Penny said I was surprised Rasheed adjusted so well under LB because he was a walking techincal foul with the Blazers. Anything can happen.


----------



## Da Grinch

Son of Oakley there have been devisive influences who have won titles as stars .

david robinson comes to mind, he almost never practiced, and they won a title . Rodman was so annoyed by it he took robinson to task about it and it was the biggest reason that spurs team couldn't jell.

rodman has won 5 titles.

teams can get by devisive influences if they are built right.

when AI went to the finals the team was singularly focused on playing defense, rebounding and letting AI take all the shots. when the team aged and parts had to be moved , it didn't work anymore and they essentially were title contenders for 1 year. they now have him at pg where he is the league's leading scorer and primary distributor and long range i think it will explode unless there are changes made in how the shots are distributed, if 2 years from now AI is still getting 30 a game that team will be deep in the lottery.

the spurs finally won when DRob was no longer the guy , when he basically let duncan be the man and just defended, rebounded and scored when he had the opportunity.

i just dont think a team where marbury is its best player will win a title , but as a #2 or 3 guy on a squad i think will be extremely good and a title contender. it all depends on whats around him and the mentality of the guys around him. KT had a problem , but it doesn't appear that any other guy who matters (i'm talking about guys who will likely be in the rotation) really cares or had an issue. and kurt and marbury worked well together, too well according to most fans, because the pick and roll was overused, so it wasn't an issue on the court and thats all that really counts.

JC, Sweets ariza rose mo or TT none of them seemed to have a personal problem with him.


----------



## truth

*Re: Truth.....*



alphadog said:


> As you know, I have never been a Marbury fan. I find his style very entertaining and a big hit at the playground courts but......I can't think of a single guy that plays like him that has led his team to a title. His game is not conducive to winning..period. All the guys (including you) that think he is going to be something better and different by playing a different position are basing your beliefs on something that none of us has seen. He is NOT an LB type of player and don't be fooled by the quotes you read in the paper saying otherwise. These days everything said is calculated. If you think about what you are expecting, you are going to realize that you will be disappointed. There are facts that must be respected: He is a catalyst to undermining team chemistry (it's been well documented about the devisiveness that occurs everywhere he goes and there are no farerwell parties thrown for him when he leaves), he does not play hard at defense, his body is breaking down, and he is not a very good deep shooter and every team needs to have 2-3 dependable long range gunners. Last year was his best %wise and it was nothing to brag about from 3. Truth, yoou'll tire of Marbury hoisting up shots after a short time. His quote about having the green light as a shooter if he plays the 2 was very scary.
> I just wish the supporters would use facts, not twisted, meaningless stats and wishful thinking when analysing him. He is what he is....a gifted player with a huge ego who should never be the focal point of a team. BTW, comparing him to Jordan is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I followed his entire career while as an adult and never heard the rumors and negative inuendo associated with superstarbury. Big dog would be a better comparison in many ways.
> He is, indeed, tradable, though. Van Ex was sort of in the same boat years ago but always managed to be moved. If LB can't make it work (and I've got very serious doubts), they will find a way to move him...IT's pal and neighbor notwithstanding.


Alfa,the first assumption i am making is that he is going to be a positive influence in the clubhouse..I may be wrong on that,but that will be the END..

When I look at marbury shifting to the 2,I see it as a move that allows JC to play a position he is far better suited for,and one which Marbury can do what he does best..SCORE....

Defensively,Marbury seemed to have problems staying with the quicker point guards.At the 2,this wont be as much of an issue,and he is certainly strong enough to hold is own at the 2..unlike JC...So I like the move from a team perspective..

I dont agree with you on the playground thing.marbury is NOT terribly flashy and takes decent shots as evidenced by his shooting %.Not sure where you are getting the playground thing from..JC on the other hand could stand to reign in his game a bit.

My biggest fear with marbury is his ego and his apparent divisiveness..

Let me rephrase my UNTRADEABLE statement..Marbury is tradeable...For guys like Damp,Webber and anyone else who is either lazy or has a mammoth contract and knee problems.


----------



## truth

> david robinson comes to mind, he almost never practiced, and they won a title . Rodman was so annoyed by it he took robinson to task about it and it was the biggest reason that spurs team couldn't jell.


Grinch,I really respect your knowledge,but that may be the saddest analogy to Stephs situation I have ever read


----------



## son of oakley

eh, delete.


----------



## Da Grinch

truth said:


> Grinch,I really respect your knowledge,but that may be the saddest analogy to Stephs situation I have ever read


david robinson is by all accounts a great guy, a fine human being , but he wasn't as universally loved by his teammates as has been implied throughout his career.

once before a playoff game avery johnson in a huddle said the rest of the team had to pull together because david wont be there for them when they need him.

and this was with robinson standing in the huddle.

despite what is spun , if a person who saw their careers its easy to see drob relly didn't have much of a work ethic.

he never got any bigger or stronger despite the fact he played center and was very thin for the position, a problem that probably eventually led to his back troubles. which became his big excuse for never participating in practice....and i assure you marbury plays more in practice than robinson did.

he never developed a post move that he could go to when the defense clamped down on him, not a drop step or a jump hook, nothing.

marbury at least has worked on his body to a great extent and has improved his game across the board since he 1st came into the nba. he has faults that robinson doesn't but the gap isn't as wide you seem to believe.

and truth i very much disagree with with the defensive reasons you stated for JC and marbury , i think they are best off guarding the positions they were at least year. both have shown they can do a great job at it when properly motivated and not overworked, last year they were horrible, but the previous year both to the eyes and the stats they were significantly better.

no one was complaining about marbury's defense in 2003-04 , and he was considered pretty good defensively the year before.


----------



## truth

Grinch,from everything I have read,the Admiral had decent work habits...As for his body,the guy was shredded,so I assume he trained as much as somene with bulging discs in his back could...And the last thing you want to do with posterior herniations,ruptures or bulging discs is put on weight.When your back or vertebral column degenerates to that degree,its all about working the core and doing extension type exercises(arching) with moderate flexion(bending foward).From what I can tell,he was extremely well conditioned for someone with his condition.

Grinch,the guy was voted top 50 of all time,was the only player to be voted All NBA and All Defensive team in his first seven years before his back started to go.His longevity is a testament to is conditionng considering his ailments.

As for his offense,he dropped 71 in a game...When healthy he averaged 25+,12rpg and over 3 bpg...

Are we talking about the same guy?


----------



## son of oakley

Early in his career Robinson was accused of lacking heart and interest in the game, but I think he shed that reputation over time.




Da Grinch said:


> once before a playoff game avery johnson in a huddle said the rest of the team had to pull together because david wont be there for them when they need him.
> 
> and this was with robinson standing in the huddle.


Is it possible that was due to Robinson's back spasms and an understanding he wouldn't be able to finish the game?



> he never got any bigger or stronger despite the fact he played center and was very thin for the position, a problem that probably eventually led to his back troubles.


Interesting. I always thought Robinson was ripped and had a prototypical chiseled NBA body. And if you look at pictures of him and Duncan together the Admirals hard body makes duncan look soft and cuddly, and ironically it is Duncan who has added little to his physique.


----------



## Da Grinch

son of oakley said:


> Early in his career Robinson was accused of lacking heart and interest in the game, but I think he shed that reputation over time.
> 
> 
> 
> when he started winning titles he did , but he before duncan that rep was running rampant, i dont think he changed at all, the circumstances around him did, that duncan guy might be considered the best power forward of all time pretty soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that was due to Robinson's back spasms and an understanding he wouldn't be able to finish the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was a pre game huddle and i cant remember a time when he didn't finish a game due to it in a playoff game and it certainly didn't happen in that game. and avery's comments wasn't about his back it was about his heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I always thought Robinson was ripped and had a prototypical chiseled NBA body. And if you look at pictures of him and Duncan together the Admirals hard body makes duncan look soft and cuddly, and ironically it is Duncan who has added little to his physique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he was cut up no doubt , but the common complaint of him is that he didn't work on his game enough(passion for the game was the pc term), it was often spun to make it seemed like there was so much to him for instance his charities , piano playing , christianity etc. duncan isn't cut but he is noticably bigger than when he entered the nba he is listed 22 lbs heavier than when he started in the nba at 260 from 238. he worked on himself to be a more effective basketball player he too entered the nba on the skinny side , the only difference is one stayed that way, and thats the one i have a problem with. not because he didn't get bigger but because at somepoint it became obvious he needed to be bigger and didn't do it.
Click to expand...


----------



## truth

> and thats the one i have a problem with. not because he didn't get bigger but because at somepoint it became obvious he needed to be bigger and didn't do it.


Grinch,you may as well advocate the use of steroids while you are at it...the guy had a serious back problem.I am not sure if it was a posterior bulge of the disc or a rupture,but putting on size is the LAST thing you want to do with that condition..


----------



## Da Grinch

truth said:


> Grinch,you may as well advocate the use of steroids while you are at it...the guy had a serious back problem.I am not sure if it was a posterior bulge of the disc or a rupture,but putting on size is the LAST thing you want to do with that condition..


actually for normal people rest is usually the medicine given.

but athletes generally are told to strengthen their back and given excercises to do it.

for instance tyson chandler had a bulging disk in 2003-04 and missed alot of games , he was instructed to build up the torso of his body and he put on in the neighborhood of 20 lbs before last season.


----------



## truth

Da Grinch said:


> actually for normal people rest is usually the medicine given.
> 
> but athletes generally are told to strengthen their back and given excercises to do it.
> 
> for instance tyson chandler had a bulging disk in 2003-04 and missed alot of games , he was instructed to build up the torso of his body and he put on in the neighborhood of 20 lbs before last season.


Totally agree that rest and strengthening the torso is a must,normal person or not.Most important is learning to stabalise the spine.Putting on weight is purely basketball related and is a double edged sword.Think of the compression on the discs and the impact it recieves as one jumps up and comes down.Extra weight only places more stress on the body and especially if there is flexion of the trunk.

Shaq is encountering the opposite problem with the sheer stress his mass puts on his joints.If he wants to play for another 5 years,he should weigh 280-300.


----------



## Da Grinch

truth said:


> Totally agree that rest and strengthening the torso is a must,normal person or not.Most important is learning to stabalise the spine.Putting on weight is purely basketball related and is a double edged sword.Think of the compression on the discs and the impact it recieves as one jumps up and comes down.Extra weight only places more stress on the body and especially if there is flexion of the trunk.
> 
> Shaq is encountering the opposite problem with the sheer stress his mass puts on his joints.If he wants to play for another 5 years,he should weigh 280-300.


x-tra muscle around trouble areas helps stabalise them be it a back, legs or arms

it helps prevents trouble not cause it.

i seriously cant think of an athlete who was seriously inhibited in their back because of too much muscle weight in their torso....knees and and ankles sure but robinson was no where near heavy enough for that to be an issue and he never really had trouble in those areas during his careers if he did , it would have been smart to pick the lesser of 2 evils ...but he never put on enough for a choice to be made, he stayed the way he was....

the bigger crime isn't his body it was that he never developed his game.

and that more than anything else spoke of his work ethic. which is what this all about.

did he even have a post move that he could go to ?

i remember a weak drop step that he never improved on since he was in Navy that he barely used anyway 99% of the time no matter where he was he faced up his opponent and either shot the ball or baited them in to drive by them.

it was a good move but not something that was very effective at the end of games when defenses collapsed on him.

the other great big men of the 80's & 90's all had other stuff. and developed them throught their careers.

Kareem abdul jabbar , had a drop step , hooks with both hands and turnaround J's at his disposal, even thoughg he obviously showcased his sky hook by far the most.

moses malone had a jump hook a turnaround J and an excellent drop step move.

ewing had an great turnaround J and alot of different types moves , head fakes, jump hooks , drop steps, and of course that somewhat laboring move across the lane in which he traveleled and never got called on .

shaq has 2 excellent moves , jump hook and a counter drop step 

olajuwon had every move imaginable

even mutumbo has the basic 2 that he could use whenever, a jump hook and a counter drop step...he even occasionally shoots a turnaround J 

and all of these players showed that improvement throught their career...robinson did not, he never got any better and he never worked on it


----------



## alphadog

*Dumb assumption....*

It is just not accurate to say that a guy can put on weight if he chooses. Ralph Sampson was a perfect example. The guy was a rail but worked his a$$ off all the time with a personal trainer but never got bigger(at least not substancially). He did, however, become the strongest guy on his team...able to curl a 95 lb. dumbell in each hand. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Iceman could have put on another 20-30 pounds if he wanted to? I know you and I have gone 'round about this, Truth, but I just disagree. I worked out with a body-builder religiously when I was around 20 and never put on more than 10 pounds. He got huge, I got stronger. 'Did the diet routine with all the legal sups and I just didn't get bigger until my late 20's. Also, anyone can get back issues and while added stength is key, size is not. Grinch makes an assumption that strength is to be accompanied by increased mass and that is not always the case until you get to extremes.


----------



## sportkingJSP13

TRON said:


> Boshinator_LBJ a.k.a. Dr. Lebroon or whatever you want to be called
> 
> I'm guessing your about 12 years old, 13 tops...get a life kid
> 
> BTW...this guy is not a Raptors fan, he's just trying to make Raptors fans look stupid


hey! I resent that I'm only 12.


----------



## truth

*Re: Dumb assumption....*



alphadog said:


> It is just not accurate to say that a guy can put on weight if he chooses. Ralph Sampson was a perfect example. The guy was a rail but worked his a$$ off all the time with a personal trainer but never got bigger(at least not substancially). He did, however, become the strongest guy on his team...able to curl a 95 lb. dumbell in each hand. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Iceman could have put on another 20-30 pounds if he wanted to? I know you and I have gone 'round about this, Truth, but I just disagree. I worked out with a body-builder religiously when I was around 20 and never put on more than 10 pounds. He got huge, I got stronger. 'Did the diet routine with all the legal sups and I just didn't get bigger until my late 20's. Also, anyone can get back issues and while added stength is key, size is not. Grinch makes an assumption that strength is to be accompanied by increased mass and that is not always the case until you get to extremes.


Alfa,what is it you disagree with me on???I was saying the Admiiral should not put on weight due to the increased stress in his lumbar region.And it appears Robinson and Sampson had similar metabolisms as the both were shredded and very lean no matter how strong they got..

The problem is they had the wrong type of strength and physiques for "power" centers.Ideally,you want strong thick legs,massive glutes and a thick torso.(Like Sweetney or Shaq).Thats your base and what is going to help you establish and keep position on the blocks.

The problem with Drob or Sampson putting on substantial weight is it really wont help them all that much as far as functional basketball strength,and it could negate their athletic edge.Its a double edged sword.


----------



## BIGsHOTBOY12345

jc76ers said:


> trade marbury for future picks. start jamal at point.
> 
> its not like the knicks are going to be contenders this year so trade him for a bunch of picks next year.



R u crazy? why would you want to trade marbury for draft picks. i'll probably give marbury to the pistons for chauncey billups


----------



## son of oakley

*Re: Dumb assumption....*

Well the whole digression around Robinson is fun, but if Grinch's point is that if a guy like Duncan could make Robinson a winner he could do the same for Marbury, I don't entirely disagree. After all Avery Johnson could win with Duncan.

Though Avery Johnson is a smart guy with good defensive ethic and a winner's character. He's coaching material, something I'd bet a testicle Marbury will never be.

But for the sake of conversation, lets assume since Duncan could salvage Robinson and Johnson's careers he could do the same for Marbury. Someone want to tell me our chances of getting Duncan, or someone like him, with low draft picks and the MLE?


----------



## son of oakley

*Re: Dumb assumption....*

Yeah, I don't buy all this business about strength and weight. DRob was better defender than Ewing while probably weighing less. Wasn't he a perennial 1st team defender? Hakeem was a rail, as was Kareem and Russell and they might be my 3 top centers of all time. Even Wilt was a bone by Shaq's standards. But give me Dream, Kareem, Wilt, Russel over Wes Unseld any day.


----------



## alphadog

*Different type of personalities, Oak...*

Robinson, by all accounts, has always been a grade A person. No trouble, very disciplined, and willing to do as he was asked. Marbury seems to be very egocentric, spoiled, and unwilling to tale a back seat. Notice I said "seems". It'll all become clear in about 4-5 months. I expect him to say all and do all the right things in the beginning. The proof will be over time.


Truth, I'm not really disagreeing with you this time. In the past you have talked about certain players being able to significantly increase their bulk by power lifting techniques. I think maybe we were talking about Hakim at SU. You were just more certain than I was. I strongly believe that gaining muscle mass is very much dependent on a persons internal "chemistry". No argument..just friendly disagreement, bro. BTW, goin' to the SU home opener Sunday?


----------



## The True Essence

i really cant believe you guys are arguing about david robinson right now.


----------



## truth

> Truth, I'm not really disagreeing with you this time. In the past you have talked about certain players being able to significantly increase their bulk by power lifting techniques. I think maybe we were talking about Hakim at SU. You were just more certain than I was. I strongly believe that gaining muscle mass is very much dependent on a persons internal "chemistry". No argument..just friendly disagreement, bro. BTW, goin' to the SU home opener Sunday?


I think we are definitely in agreement on this one..
BTW,when I talk about powerlifting,I am really talking about explosive strength,not just mass...

And no doubt if you are pregenetically disposed to be built like Ralph Sampson or Drob,gettin bulky will be very difficult regardless of your training method..

The one guy who really changed his body was Karl malone.He was pretty thin as a rook and bulked up significantly....

I am down in Fla for the month,so I wont be up there..Are you living in Syracuse?


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dumb assumption....*



alphadog said:


> It is just not accurate to say that a guy can put on weight if he chooses. Ralph Sampson was a perfect example. The guy was a rail but worked his a$$ off all the time with a personal trainer but never got bigger(at least not substancially). He did, however, become the strongest guy on his team...able to curl a 95 lb. dumbell in each hand. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Iceman could have put on another 20-30 pounds if he wanted to? I know you and I have gone 'round about this, Truth, but I just disagree. I worked out with a body-builder religiously when I was around 20 and never put on more than 10 pounds. He got huge, I got stronger. 'Did the diet routine with all the legal sups and I just didn't get bigger until my late 20's. Also, anyone can get back issues and while added stength is key, size is not. Grinch makes an assumption that strength is to be accompanied by increased mass and that is not always the case until you get to extremes.


ralph could do that with arms that were still thin, he just got stronger. some people cant put on mass , i get that, sometimes you come across guys who just aren't built for it. 

the admiral's arms were very big compared to his body they were huge , his arms alone tell you he had the ability to bulk up. he just didn't.

also remember david robinson was not all that young when he entered the nba he was about 24 his rookie year, and i wasn't posting about him just getting to the nba and getting bigger the moment he got there it was a commentary on his whole career, i was posting about him as a whole and in much larger about that he was basically the same guy when he entered the nba as when he left it. bodywise and skillwise....to me that says poor work ethic, because he was far from perfect...add to that he missed a bunch of practices...so i question how good a teammate he could have been.


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dumb assumption....*



son of oakley said:


> Yeah, I don't buy all this business about strength and weight. DRob was better defender than Ewing while probably weighing less. Wasn't he a perennial 1st team defender? Hakeem was a rail, as was Kareem and Russell and they might be my 3 top centers of all time. Even Wilt was a bone by Shaq's standards. But give me Dream, Kareem, Wilt, Russel over Wes Unseld any day.


and what about his actual game?


everyone except russell just wasn't good enough most of the time according the title count ...and all of those guys got much better and more versatile as their careers went along except robinson.


----------



## son of oakley

*Re: Dumb assumption....*



Da Grinch said:


> and what about his actual game?
> 
> 
> everyone except russell just wasn't good enough most of the time according the title count ...and all of those guys got much better and more versatile as their careers went along except robinson.


What about his game? He entered the league as a defensive specialist, but he eventually won the scoring title. He improved his game MORE THAN Bill Russell, who since thin and never developing Kevin McHale like post moves must also have been, by your logic, possessed of a poor work ethic and been a "bad teammate"!!!

This is the ends to which Marbury supporters now go. Malone, Stockton, Barkley, KG, and Ewing are all "losers" because they, like Steph, haven't won titles. And now we learn Hakeem, Bill Russell, Bill Walton and David Robinson were bad teammates, like Steph, because they were thin.

You're killing me...


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dumb assumption....*



son of oakley said:


> What about his game? He entered the league as a defensive specialist, but he eventually won the scoring title. He improved his game MORE THAN Bill Russell, who since thin and never developing Kevin McHale like post moves must also have been, by your logic, possessed of a poor work ethic and been a "bad teammate"!!!
> 
> This is the ends to which Marbury supporters now go. Malone, Stockton, Barkley, KG, and Ewing are all "losers" because they, like Steph, haven't won titles. And now we learn Hakeem, Bill Russell, Bill Walton and David Robinson were bad teammates, like Steph, because they were thin.
> 
> You're killing me...


the "defensive specialist" avg 24.3 points a game his rookie year.

i think your definition and mine of differ

bill russell didn't really have to improve since he won 11 titles in 13 years, he unlike robinson was a great teammate , and in fact good enough...and he wasn't really asked to score when the game was on the line, robinson was.

i never said all those guys were bad teammates i said david robinson has a suspect work ethic because he never really got any better or bigger .

better as in gained any new skills from the day he entered the nba because he never worked at it.

and i never said he had to be kevin mchale ...i said he had to get something down there

and never got any bigger , even though at a certain point it became obvious it would help him ....or lest we forget so soon he had a soft tag on him because he often got pushed around in the post.

you seem to be saying he was good enough....well if he was then he wouldn't have needed tim duncan to have seen the finals without a television set...

but hey read stuff that i didn't write til you are blue in the face.

because that will make you right
:whatever:


----------



## truth

*Re: Dumb assumption....*



Da Grinch said:


> the "defensive specialist" avg 24.3 points a game his rookie year.
> i think your definition and mine of differ
> bill russell didn't really have to improve since he won 11 titles in 13 years, he unlike robinson was a great teammate , and in fact good enough...and he wasn't really asked to score when the game was on the line, robinson was.
> i never said all those guys were bad teammates i said david robinson has a suspect work ethic because he never really got any better or bigger .
> better as in gained any new skills from the day he entered the nba because he never worked at it.
> and i never said he had to be kevin mchale ...i said he had to get something down there
> and never got any bigger , even though at a certain point it became obvious it would help him ....or lest we forget so soon he had a soft tag on him because he often got pushed around in the post.
> 
> you seem to be saying he was good enough....well if he was then he wouldn't have needed tim duncan to have seen the finals without a television set...
> 
> but hey read stuff that i didn't write til you are blue in the face.
> 
> because that will make you right
> :whatever:


Grinch,you are going after an NBA all time top 50...

I think you are reaching a bit on this one.....


----------



## son of oakley

*Re: Dumb assumption....*

Grinch, your problem is you are trying to ascertain work ethic through genetics. You're saying Robinson was a slacker based upon his build, ignoring that he had the same build as Russell, Walton, Hakeem, Mutombo, etc. 

And for all of Robinson's "failure" to put on weight he was a multiple 1st team all-defensive player, scoring leader and two time champion.

Honors: NBA champion (1999, 2003); MVP (1995); Defensive Player of the Year (1992); Rookie of the Year (1990); All-NBA First Team (1991, '92, '95, '96); All-NBA Second Team (1994, '98); All-NBA Third Team (1990, '93, 2000, '01); All-Defensive First Team (1991, '92, '95, '96); All-Defensive Second Team (1990, '93, '94, '98); 10-time NBA All-Star; NBA Sportsmanship Award (2001); Three-time Olympian (1988, '92, '96); One of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996).

But go ahead, knock him for his genetics. Er... work ethic...

Just for kicks, by sight pick the one slacker on this page.

http://asuaf.org/~jjohnson/legendsC.htm

Pretty obvious to everyone, right? Easy to see David Robinson slacked, slacked, slacked while the other HOFers worked, worked, worked.

Ya, sure...


----------



## Da Grinch

being a top 50 player doesn't make you perfect or above scrutiny .

there are top 50 players who were universally considered selfish, that took flash over substance, that cared more about their stats than their team's accomplishments, that played dirty, heck there are top 50's who solicit prostitutes , smoked weed,commited battery and assault , spit on people and yes, there were top 50's with sub par work ethics ...yes it does exists....charles barkley hovered around 300 lbs his 1st few years in the league...but he was hauling in major #s points rebounds steals shot a high FG% so in the minds of others here(you know who you are) it didn't matter.

but it did matter which is why he eventually lost the weight and made himself into an even better player.

son of oak you can imply what i'm saying for 4ever and a day instead of focusing on what i'm actually saying , in the end its just going to make me laugh at you.

i never knocked him for genetics ....and i will ask you to find me a case of a player who couldn't gain weight yet had a massive body part such as huge arms or legs ...yet couldn't put on mass anywhere else.

i suspect i will be waiting a long time for an answer on this one.

and i'll ask it again where was the improvement?

i mentioned stuff other great big men did in his era to improve as their careers went along...i am still waiting for a refute on that ....and i've been waiting for 2 pages of this thread now ...as i have said repeatedly his lack of practicing and improving his product on the court was by far the most important thing...what he did in the weight room in preparation for that is a small matter encompassed in that.


----------



## son of oakley

Da Grinch said:


> son of oak you can imply what i'm saying for 4ever and a day instead of focusing on what i'm actually saying , in the end its just going to make me laugh at you.
> 
> i never knocked him for genetics ....and i will ask you to find me a case of a player who couldn't gain weight yet had a massive body part such as huge arms or legs ...yet couldn't put on mass anywhere else.
> 
> i suspect i will be waiting a long time for an answer on this one.
> 
> and i'll ask it again where was the improvement?
> 
> i mentioned stuff other great big men did in his era to improve as their careers went along...i am still waiting for a refute on that ....and i've been waiting for 2 pages of this thread now ...as i have said repeatedly his lack of practicing and improving his product on the court was by far the most important thing...what he did in the weight room in preparation for that is a small matter encompassed in that.


Couple of things. I think what you are doing is that you heard somewhere that Robinson had other interests that distracted him from hoops, which I agreed to pages back, and that teammates may have at one time or another questioned his "heart", and that all told he was less than idillic in your eyes. That's fine, some of that may be true, and if you came with quotes or the like to support it perhaps we'd have come to an understanding. But instead you are pointing to his build and game to support these accusations and I think that approach falls far short.

To refute your misguided approach you ask me to prove your assumptions wrong by showing you how Robinson changed his game. I can't, I'm not a David Robinson specialist. He may well have added to his game and I wouldn't know it. What I do know is there are many players of similar builds to his, with a lesser skillset than his, who, A) changed their game less than him, B) added less bulk than him, to their arms or otherwise.... who you and others do NOT criticize similarly. And I have been mentioning who they are for as many pages as you accuse me of ignoring you.

Think Mutombo, Hakeem, and Russell to name but a few.

Your response is "but they were good enough, and Robinson wasn't" and I point you to Robinson's resume to refute that, but you pay NO heed to his achievements.

Not every player can alter their game. Deke never did, I don't know that Russell did, nor Rodman, Dr J... a smarter man than I could go on for days... and these guys don't have that used against them. I'd think the players who do substantially alter their games over the course of their careers are fewer than those who don't. What most do is get wiser about their games, get stronger, and refine their existing skill set.

So it is not that I am ignoring what you say, or putting words in your mouth. It is that I find your approach flawed and you dismiss my refutations. The only thing that will silence you is proof that Robinson altered his game, which I find to be a red herring as the same is not required of similar players who also achieved all-star, champion and MVP status. If you want to evidence that Robinson was a bad teammate I'm open to hearing it, but the onus is on you to find more convincing methods of proof than the double standards you offer.

And BTW, here is a picture of David Robinson as a rookie. Mind you, he served in the Navy before entering the league and this came in at 24 a far more mature rookie than most.

http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/warehouse/robinsondoor90nike.htm

And still he brought himself to here:





































Are you really insinuating that the man was too incomplete and not sufficiently fit for the task at hand?

Honors: NBA champion (1999, 2003); MVP (1995); Defensive Player of the Year (1992); Rookie of the Year (1990); All-NBA First Team (1991, '92, '95, '96); All-NBA Second Team (1994, '98); All-NBA Third Team (1990, '93, 2000, '01); All-Defensive First Team (1991, '92, '95, '96); All-Defensive Second Team (1990, '93, '94, '98); 10-time NBA All-Star; NBA Sportsmanship Award (2001); Three-time Olympian (1988, '92, '96); One of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996).


----------



## truth

Da Grinch said:


> being a top 50 player doesn't make you perfect or above scrutiny .
> there are top 50 players who were universally considered selfish, that took flash over substance, that cared more about their stats than their team's accomplishments, that played dirty, heck there are top 50's who solicit prostitutes , smoked weed,commited battery and assault , spit on people and yes, there were top 50's with sub par work ethics ...yes it does exists....charles barkley hovered around 300 lbs his 1st few years in the league...but he was hauling in major #s points rebounds steals shot a high FG% so in the minds of others here(you know who you are) it didn't matter.
> but it did matter which is why he eventually lost the weight and made himself into an even better player.son of oak you can imply what i'm saying for 4ever and a day instead of focusing on what i'm actually saying , in the end its just going to make me laugh at you.
> i never knocked him for genetics ....and i will ask you to find me a case of a player who couldn't gain weight yet had a massive body part such as huge arms or legs ...yet couldn't put on mass anywhere else.
> i suspect i will be waiting a long time for an answer on this one.
> and i'll ask it again where was the improvement?
> i mentioned stuff other great big men did in his era to improve as their careers went along...i am still waiting for a refute on that ....and i've been waiting for 2 pages of this thread now ...as i have said repeatedly his lack of practicing and improving his product on the court was by far the most important thing...what he did in the weight room in preparation for that is a small matter encompassed in that.


Grinch,my "gripe" is you strongly imply that his game didnt develop and he never bulked up.Yet you are aware that he had a serious back problem.You are completely ignoring the fact that he was utterly dominant when healthy.



> 1996-1997
> Appeared in just six games ... was placed on the injured list on 10/30 due to a lower back strain ... missed the first 18 games of the season before being activated on 12/10 ... played limited minutes in six straight games - as part of his rehabilitation program for his back - before suffering a non-displaced fracture of the fifth metatarsal of his left foot on 12/23 vs. Miami ... underwent successful surgery on 12/27 (at which time a screw was inserted into his left foot) but missed the remainder of the season



For hi career,he was averaging 26 pts,12 boards and 3.5 blocks up until that point.He NEVER was the same player after that.Just like Bernard King,just like Walton and every other athlete who had to overcome major injuries..


----------



## Da Grinch

well son of oakley i think you are just some guy who accepts david robinson as a workaholic based on the size of his arms without even a thought to anything else.

whenever you are ready you can name any person who can put bulk on just on part of their body and not gain anything anywhere else.

you admit to not knowing enough about david robinson and yet say you can tell me how and why i have my knowledge on him.

sound funny to you ? because it does sound funny to me.

if you think olajuwon changed his game less than robinson you have alot to learn about 80's and 90's nba basketball.

defensively olajuwon was a stud and has been the moment he entered the nba , but on offense he came into the nba with a relatively raw but potent offensive nba game over the years he became an extremely versatile offensive player with an almost limitless amount of post moves and mentally he changed from someone who was considered extremely selfish to basically to a leader and pretty much the ultimate team player, when he realized the team could actually play well without him when he had to sit out some time with a fractured cheekbone.

mutumbo gained quite a bit during his career since he was a horrible post player when he started in the nba , basically living off of garbage baskets , he is now an ok to good post up option with a couple of good moves he can put on anyone. mutombo is listed at 265 so its fair to say he's put on his fair share of weight as well. so your claim that robinson put on less weight kind of falls of deaf ears.
http://aol.nba.com/playerfile/dikembe_mutombo/

russell was asked to concentrate on defense and became considered the best defensive player ever...also he won titles repeatedly in that setup...it would have been 12 if he didn't get hurt in the finals in his 3rd season .if there was any player who can say what he was doing was good enough it was him, because what he did worked...david robinson and virtually every other player were not the main cogs of dynasties that started and ended with them...so until there is a perfect basketball player all of them can improve and none of them really can rest on their larels. david robinson in particular had the ability to improve his game , but didn't...and more importantly didn't work on his game as most in his position did.

dennis rodman started his career as a sg-sf and avg. 4 reb. his rookie year, he did try to improve his game in fact one year he tried and made more 3 pointers than michael jordan and scottie pippen , he went from a guy who never touched the ball and avg. less than an assist a game twice in his 1st 4 years to a great passer who avg. 18.7 boards and considered one of the great rebounders in nba history at power forward while playing some center.

he also got alot bigger , he was barely 200 lbs as a rookie, not nearly big enough to bang with power players , but as time went on he got bigger to help his game....that my friend is a work ethic...and the lack of which in david robinson is the main reason they never got along in san antonio.


i also never accused you of ignoring me ...i think you have a problem with reading things that aren't there.


----------



## Da Grinch

truth said:


> Grinch,my "gripe" is you strongly imply that his game didnt develop and he never bulked up.Yet you are aware that he had a serious back problem.You are completely ignoring the fact that he was utterly dominant when healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For hi career,he was averaging 26 pts,12 boards and 3.5 blocks up until that point.He NEVER was the same player after that.Just like Bernard King,just like Walton and every other athlete who had to overcome major injuries..



i imply he didn't get better?

no i am saying flat out he did not improve his skills as a basketball player.

david robinson came back for the 97-98 season he turned 33 in in 98 by that point he was on the downside of his career , i understand that and i agree .

but he had a significant amount of years under his belt by that point, he was drafted in 87 and started playing 2 years later.

i think you are looking at his stats and not understanding their meaning , for instance his best season , his 2nd season he avg. 25.6 points....he was not the spurs 1st option or go to guy, he was that talented naturally to score that much anyway, after his 1st few seasons terry cummings aged and robinson became his team's go to guy and #1 option on offense, he needed to be bigger and stronger to handle the burden and more importantly he became more skilled , and he really didn't.

and he didn't have any excuse to.

it wasn't coaching, his teams were coached by guys who knew the game and knew how to get the most out of players larry brown who left the spurs and got the clippers of all teams into the playoffs and then rejuvenated the career of rik smits in indiana, he had bob hill, who coached shaq early in his career to some good success, he has also had people like john lucas and his polar opposite greg popovich, and with the exception of brown and current coach greg pop the other coaches were fired because the team underachieved...and they underachieved because in essense robinson underachieved when they needed him most.

can remember a signature performance in the playoffs from robinson?

any clutch baskets that won a playoff game?

i cant . and he's been on 2 title winning teams and in the playoffs plenty of other times...i can remember him being on the business end of an olajuwon signature moment and even at the business end of a barkley moment.

he wasn't hurt all that bad by his back in most years , before 96-97 when he missed those 76 game he had missed a total of 17 games in 7 seasons and 14 of those were in 1 season.

most players dont get new moves or new abilities during the season with their coaching , most players make the stuff that happens in the offseason , david robinson never came back with anything new and he missed a boatload of practice during the season...just about every season.

so when was it going to happen?

the answer is there was no place...and it didn't, and thats why i find fault with him as a teammate, because if you are on a team and you dont put in your work to be a better player and your team is not as good as it could be, there is fault with you. and there is fault no matter how good a player you are . when he was the best player and leader of the spurs they took their cue from him and his habits like marbury(remember him) for the knicks and it had the same divisive effect.

do you think there is an excuse for iverson to come in next season without working sufficiently on his game...he was all nba 1st team this past season he has been mvp, multiple allstar.

how about shaq ? dirk or nash? 

how about lebron james ? he is already considered the best small forward in the nba, doesn't he still need to work on his game ?

i am of the opinion that he does in spite of his accomplishments and the same goes for the rest of the players i named in spite of their accomplishments.

avery questioned his heart , i remember rodman taking issue with his work habits and jack haley basically leveled him in another book for his work habits.

david robinson was an awesome talent but he could have been better and his teammates knew it and had issue with his shortcomings, which they felt were correctable, and that he didn't what was needed to correct them and he was not some shrieking violet he had confidence in himself he was quoted in "the Jordan Rules" in saying that if you knew basketball you knew he was better than jordan. he could have done it, but he choose for whatever reason not to and health had nothing to do with it..


----------



## son of oakley

Eh, might be last round for me. This is really such a non-issue in my book.



Da Grinch said:


> well son of oakley i think you are just some guy who accepts david robinson as a workaholic based on the size of his arms without even a thought to anything else.


Now you're accusing me of calling him a workaholic? You clearly didn't read my last post at all - probably none of them with an intent to understand. I'm not even arguing that he was a good worker. YOU are arguing that he was a bad teammate and what you offer as proof is his weight and "unimproved" skillset. What I have said is I see too many others with similar builds, who have added less to their frames and as little or less to their games and not had that offered as "proof" of being a "bad teammate".




> whenever you are ready you can name any person *who can put bulk on just on part of their body* and not gain anything anywhere else.


You are trying to make your case around my weakness at trivia? I can tell you this, I have seen football players (not really my sport, so I'll be even worse at that trivia) who have a similar build to Robinson. Typically receivers and tight ends.

Why those positions would choose to train like that, or Robinson, I don't know, but I do know it is biologically feasible, and probably desirable for certain reasons.

Maybe you could make things more clear. You ignore that Truth repeatedly asserts that additional weight would be bad for Robinson's bad back, so what exactly are you suggesting is Robinson's motive here? 



> you admit to not knowing enough about david robinson and yet say you can tell me how and why i have my knowledge on him. sound funny to you ? because it does sound funny to me.


Well I speculated on that, but the point is that your "evidence" casts a wide net over far more than David Robinson. Under the scrutiny of your evidence Bill Russell is a "bad teammate" too.





> if you think olajuwon changed his game less than robinson you have alot to learn about 80's and 90's nba basketball.


Always more to learn...



> defensively olajuwon was a stud and has been the moment he entered the nba , but on offense he came into the nba with a relatively raw but potent offensive nba game over the years he became an extremely versatile offensive player with an almost limitless amount of post moves


I assued hakeem did not come into the league doing all he ultimately did, however, when I spoke of him it was in reference to your insinuation that Robinson's lack of bulk limited his defense. Thus I brought in the likes of Russell, Hakeem and Mutombo, all stellar defenders and equally thin.

But you don't want to acknowledge any of that. Nor Robinson's own defensive accolades.




> and mentally he changed from someone who was considered extremely selfish to basically to a leader and pretty much the ultimate team player, when he realized the team could actually play well without him when he had to sit out some time with a fractured cheekbone.


Right, and no one can say that Robinson did the same for Duncan and the Spurs?




> mutumbo gained quite a bit during his career since he was a horrible post player when he started in the nba , basically living off of garbage baskets , he is now an ok to good post up option with a couple of good moves he can put on anyone. mutombo is listed at 265 so its fair to say he's put on his fair share of weight as well. so your claim that robinson {typo?} put on less weight kind of falls of deaf ears.


Bull, Mutombo is still offensively inept. he's done nothing but refine his herkey jerkey interior moves with no touch. Same as anyone in the game as long as he would. Similar to a Dennis Rodman.

And I refer you back to the photo of he and Robinson fighting for the ball to see who added more meat to their frame.



> russell was asked to concentrate on defense and became considered the best defensive player ever...also he won titles repeatedly in that setup...it would have been 12 if he didn't get hurt in the finals in his 3rd season .if there was any player who can say what he was doing was good enough it was him, because what he did worked...


No arguments, aside from the fact that he had multiple HOF players around him. Lucky him to not have to try to be the best defensive player in the game and scoring leader at the same time, like Robinson.



> david robinson and virtually every other player were not the main cogs of dynasties that started and ended with them...so until there is a perfect basketball player all of them can improve and none of them really can rest on their larels. david robinson in particular had the ability to improve his game , but didn't...and more importantly didn't work on his game as most in his position did.


Please grinch, runner hits the road. Do you have any better evidence for this accusation other than that _some_ guys were able to add more offensive moves than him, while others were not, and that he bulked up his arms in greater proportion to the rest of his body? Because as scoring leader, defensive player of the year, multiple first team all NBA, multiple first team all defense, MVP and two time champion, he had his plate pretty full and was a far more complete player than most with the build he had entering the league.



> dennis rodman started his career as a sg-sf and avg. 4 reb. his rookie year, he did try to improve his game in fact one year he tried and made more 3 pointers than michael jordan and scottie pippen , he went from a guy who never touched the ball and avg. less than an assist a game twice in his 1st 4 years to a great passer who avg. 18.7 boards and considered one of the great rebounders in nba history at power forward while playing some center.


What does this prove. He entered the league a high energy "worm" who woulod occassionally pop from the outside and that's how he left the league. Different in style but Oakley was the simlar as a defender/rebounder who could pop. That a coach will som,etinme choose to emphasize and aspect of a player more than another doesn't mean that player suddenly developed that skill. For instance when Patrick was injured and later traded, Oakley was asked to come out more and hit the 18 footer. he didn't suddenly add that skill, though it might have appeared that way, he had it coming in, probably refined it a bit, but mostly just got called to utilize it more.

My suspicion is that Robinson added more to his arsenal than say Rodman, who you credit. When I'm done here I'm gonna do what I always do when challenged to prove or disprove my assumptions. I'm gonna go to the Spurs board and inquire. If you're right, that Robinson added NOTHING to his repertiore, and was a known bad teammate I will congratulate you on your knowledge, if you are wrong... well... I'll make life as miserable as one can for a grinch...



> he also got alot bigger , he was barely 200 lbs as a rookie, not nearly big enough to bang with power players , but as time went on he got bigger to help his game....that my friend is a work ethic...and the lack of which in david robinson is the main reason they never got along in san antonio.


They almost all get bigger with age. Rodman certainly did, as did Russell, Dekembe and Robinson. You are the one trying to make Robinson the odd man out when the pictures belie your words.




> i also never accused you of ignoring me ...i think you have a problem with reading things that aren't there.


I'm not gonna go back and reread all you wrote, but you were bellyaching I didn't address something trivia question or another for pages and pages.


----------



## alphadog

*Grinch....*

My final weigh in on this as well. I think you are dead wrong on most of yoour assumptions. As one of the oldest guys here, I have seen ALL the guys you mentioned play mosy of their careers. Alcindor came into the league with both hooks, a mid range jumper, AND excellent footwork. He nefver needed to use the drop step until late in his career because no one could stop his skyhook. Mutombo also had the hook shot in GU. His real only addition was the foul line jumper. The Dream was a late comer to the game and had the physical abilities to adapt his game to mimic a 2 or 3's game (there has prolly never been another center able to do it..now days he would be Amare). DR was one of the best 5's during his career and you would have given your left nut to have him wear orange and blue. You can't remember a clutch moment from him? Big deal. How many blown shots did 'Ewe have? Tons. I still love the guy because he was a warrior. Check out the match-ups between DR and whoever else you want while he was healthy. The guy was a winner and all class. Rodman's 3 pt game? Be serious. The guys BEST was 31% which was followed by 21%. Yeah....it was part of his improved game. Please.

BTW, Ewing was already a very good shooter in college...he just wasn't the prime offensive focus. He did hone his offensive game, I admit, but he did so at the expense of his defensive game. That man was an absolute monster on D until he saw where the money was. One final comment. DR NEVER had the kind of team that Duncan has been blessed with. To say he is not a winner is another one of your ridiculous statements. Go back to the tapes, my young Jedi........


----------



## Sixerfanforlife

*Re: Grinch....*

Hey Knick fans otherwise known as idiots.

The fourm's topic is asking what qill you get for Stephon.

So instead of blabbing about which past center is the king.

Because Shaq is king and that's fact.

Why don't you start talking about it.


Dalembert/2008 1st round pick

For:

Marbury

Cash in Salary

Dealo?


----------



## USSKittyHawk

*Re: Grinch....*



Sixerfanforlife said:


> Hey Knick fans otherwise known as idiots.


Was that neccessary? :whatever:


----------



## The True Essence

marbury sucks cause hes a knick, you dont want him. you want dalembert


----------



## Tragedy

Trade Marbury for Jason Kidd.

*blinks*


----------



## dynamiks

Marbury for Lamar Odom and Devan George.
or
MArbury for Dan Gadzuric and Micheal Redd
or
Marbury for Ricky Davis and Reaf LaFrentz


----------



## djtoneblaze

*Re: Truth.....*



alphadog said:


> I can't think of a single guy that plays like him that has led his team to a title.


Isiah Thomas
Chauncey Billups


----------



## truth

*Re: Truth.....*



djtoneblaze said:


> Isiah Thomas
> Chauncey Billups



Billups yes...Zeke NOT


----------



## alphadog

*Get real...*

Neither of those guys plays like superstarbury. They both play(ed) very solid defense for one. Billups never forces anything and just makes good sound plays but isn't a great passer ..nor does he have the handle of the other guys. IT could just take over a game...he was twice as quick as SM. Geez...what kind of drugs do you guys take? Take a poll and see who Marbury is similiar to....those two guys are not going to be close. He is closer to Francis and AI than either of those two.

Look for strong players with great handles....a mediocre perimeter game...lack of defense...no personality...and tons of ego. I will root for the guy once the season starts but just because he's a Knick doesn't mean I have to think he's great player. He's a player with great skills but not a great player.


----------



## truth

*Re: Get real...*



alphadog said:


> Neither of those guys plays like superstarbury. They both play(ed) very solid defense for one. Billups never forces anything and just makes good sound plays but isn't a great passer ..nor does he have the handle of the other guys. IT could just take over a game...he was twice as quick as SM. Geez...what kind of drugs do you guys take? Take a poll and see who Marbury is similiar to....those two guys are not going to be close. He is closer to Francis and AI than either of those two.
> 
> Look for strong players with great handles....a mediocre perimeter game...lack of defense...no personality...and tons of ego. I will root for the guy once the season starts but just because he's a Knick doesn't mean I have to think he's great player. He's a player with great skills but not a great player.


Alfa=dead wrong...and out of control as usual...You asked a simple question



> I can't think of a single guy that plays like him that has led his team to a title


 I said Zeke "NOT"...So the answer is Billups...They are the same size,same build,same type of ballplayers..Dont confuse the system they play in with the player.And Marbury's D would look alot better with the Wallace brothers backing him up...If Billups never forces anything,implying marbury does,then why is marburys FG% higher than Billups??

Secondly,if Zeke was 2x as quick as Steph,what would that make AI??10x???Stephs game is nothing like AI's..

Billups is the answer Alfa..Not Francis....Dog,You dont watch much basketball do you????? :biggrin: 

P.S. you wanted to remind you if you were ever wrong..you are WRONG!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sportkingJSP13

NYK101 said:


> were not trading marbury


exactly....

if you were Memphis would probably definitely be interested


----------



## son of oakley

sportkingJSP13 said:


> exactly....
> 
> if you were Memphis would probably definitely be interested


That would surprise me actually. My perception of Jerry West in Memphis has been a guy of great patience and restraint in granting max contracts and having a penchant for guys willing to share minutes and subjugate their roles for the team. 

Not saying Marbury CAN'T conform to that or that it rules him out, but still I've seen nothing from West that leads me to believe he'd change course for Stephon or that Steph fits his MO.


----------



## alphadog

*For Truth...*

Yeah...I watch a ton of ball; especially back in the day . I can tell you without any doubt that AI is not head and shoulders quicker than IT. Maybe a bit, but not much. Did YOU watch? He was very much like AI in quickness...just w/o the cross-over.

Steph and AI are that dissimiliar? In size, sure...along with AI's advantage in quickness, but their GAMES are similiar. Both get to the hoop and finish. Both are mediocre shooters. Both make the kind of assists that look good number-wise but do little to create easy baskets outside of perimeter springers. Neither is good at running a team. Both are intense on offense but a bit lackidasical on defense. Its eerie how much Billups' game is UNLIKE Marbary's. Both are strong, yes but.....man, YOU are dead wrong. Take your lips off Marbury's butt long enough to compare some film, then get back to me.

BTW, you never did point out my past errors........

Sorry for straying off topic, guys (and gals)


----------



## truth

*Re: For Truth...*



alphadog said:


> Steph and AI are that dissimiliar? In size, sure...along with AI's advantage in quickness, but their GAMES are similiar. Both get to the hoop and finish. Both are mediocre shooters. Both make the kind of assists that look good number-wise but do little to create easy baskets outside of perimeter springers. Neither is good at running a team. Both are intense on offense but a bit lackidasical on defense. Its eerie how much Billups' game is UNLIKE Marbary's. Both are strong, yes but.....man, YOU are dead wrong. Take your lips off Marbury's butt long enough to compare some film, then get back to me.
> BTW, you never did point out my past errors........
> Sorry for straying off topic, guys (and gals)


Sorry Dog,you are WRONG...Steph is more much more Billups than he is A.I.Not even close.Just look at the Assist to turnover ratios.You are still confusing a system with the players....AI is a 5'11" 175 waterbug who is lightning quick.Billups and marbury are 6'2"-6'3" 210 bull strong pound guards who are scorers and play a much more controlled game..Look at the shooting %... 

Talk to me about Billups game pre Coach Brown and the Wallace Bros and tell me they are disimilar.

Alfa,you really need to stop watching videos of Zeke and the Bad Boys and get cable TV


----------



## Da Grinch

marbury has some parts of isiah thomas , A.I. and chauncey billups in his game....and there are some other simlarities as well.

for one all have been coached by larry brown at some point in their pro careers, with marbury ,Billups and iverson being coached by brown in the last 3 years .

all 4 can play both the 2 and the 1 at least on offense despite all really being point guard sized.

all 4 at some point were roundly criticized for not being enough of a leader and for not sharing the ball enough.

and i agree with alpha there wasn't much difference in speed between AI and IT, but i would give the edge to iverson.

but back on topic . 

the sad thing is he had his best situation for his talents and ultimately didn't like the conditions in minny. a team that would still be perfect for his game.

memphis would be too, toronto would take him for anyone and anthing but chris bosh.

marbury mo taylor and jackie butler for jaric , wally Z, mike olawakandi and a 1st rounder.

marbury and david lee for eddie jones and shane battier and a 1st.

marbury, butler for jalen, graham and a 1st.


----------



## The True Essence

billups was never known as a defender til larry brown got him.

in minnesota, he was called a liability...now hes a all nba d first teamer?

why cant steph?


----------



## truth

PennyHardaway said:


> billups was never known as a defender til larry brown got him.
> 
> in minnesota, he was called a liability...now hes a all nba d first teamer?
> 
> why cant steph?


Because Alfa cant see the forest thru the trees...... :biggrin: 

Alot of Billups new found defensive skills are 
1) Ben Wallace
2) Raheed Wallace
3)Tayshaun Prince
4)Team D
5)Coach Brown

Its not rocket science.......


----------



## truth

Grinch



> marbury has some parts of isiah thomas , A.I. and chauncey billups in his game....and there are some other simlarities as well.


that was WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alfa said he could not think of one point guard that played like marbury and won a championship....

Dont be scared of Alfa..His bark is worse than his bite....I say Billups..Are you saying Billups and Zeke??

What are you saying??


----------



## Da Grinch

truth said:


> Grinch
> 
> 
> 
> that was WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Alfa said he could not think of one point guard that played like marbury and won a championship....
> 
> Dont be scared of Alfa..His bark is worse than his bite....I say Billups..Are you saying Billups and Zeke??
> 
> What are you saying??


truth i didn't know i was in some sort of battle, i was just adding my 2 Cents

well maybe he cant think of a point guard who played like marbury who has won one.

everyone's veiwpoints are different , he may view marbury different than i do.

but the way i view marbury , he is a shoot 1st pg who scores very well and there are plenty of those guys who have won titles.



> for instance there is this guy ,listed at 6'2 an ok to good perimeter shooter but its not his strength which is getting by his man and getting to the rim, good passer with an excellent handle....also not the greatest defender...has moments when its very good , but its usually sub-par, especially against the pick and roll


the quote is a description of a player, on this board i'm sure the overwhelming majority would say its stephon marbury, but it isn't , its tony parker.


----------



## GNG

kamego said:


> If the Knicks get an offer to get Mag or Gasol, they better trade Marbury. A big man is very hard to find in this league. I'm not dogging on SM's talent but I think it's much easier to find a solid PG then C.


That's exactly why Memphis would never trade Gasol for Marbury.


----------



## truth

> truth i didn't know i was in some sort of battle, i was just adding my 2 Cents.well maybe he cant think of a point guard who played like marbury who has won one.
> everyone's veiwpoints are different , he may view marbury different than i do.
> but the way i view marbury , *he is a shoot 1st pg who scores very well and there are plenty of those guys who have won titles*.


you werent in a battle as you stood middle ground..now you are in a battle as you stated there are plenty of guys similar to marbury who have won titles...

wait until alfa is let off the leash


----------



## son of oakley

PennyHardaway said:


> billups was never known as a defender til larry brown got him.
> 
> in minnesota, he was called a liability...now hes a all nba d first teamer?
> 
> why cant steph?


Well as a Marbury detractor I will say this, with Brown it's a new day. Steph get the opportunity to come in with a clean slate in my book. I see possibilities for him that I simply would not if, say, Herb were coaching.

That said, it's also put up or shut up time. To start last season Marbury said something like " It's not gonna be like in NJ, we have some talent here, we have finishers, it should be a good year."

Okay, that's what he said, but we all know we were not only not a good team last year, but not a deep team either, especially in the swing positions. So while I think we underachieved beyond what the injuries should have allowed, and not in small part due to chemistry problems around KT, Marbury and his comments, we can still use the injuries as an excuse. But with the additions of Nate, Q, Frye, Lee and James we are at least two deep at every position. If Marbury is worth his salt we need to be in serious playoff contention and giving good fight in a playoff series, otherwise I just don't see him fitting in with the rebuilding timeframe of this club.


----------



## truth

son of oakley said:


> Well as a Marbury detractor I will say this, with Brown it's a new day. Steph get the opportunity to come in with a clean slate in my book. I see possibilities for him that I simply would not if, say, Herb were coaching.
> 
> That said, it's also put up or shut up time. To start last season Marbury said something like " It's not gonna be like in NJ, we have some talent here, we have finishers, it should be a good year."
> 
> Okay, that's what he said, but we all know we were not only not a good team last year, but not a deep team either, especially in the swing positions. So while I think we underachieved beyond what the injuries should have allowed, and not in small part due to chemistry problems around KT, Marbury and his comments, we can still use the injuries as an excuse. But with the additions of Nate, Q, Frye, Lee and James we are at least two deep at every position. If Marbury is worth his salt we need to be in serious playoff contention and giving good fight in a playoff series, otherwise I just don't see him fitting in with the rebuilding timeframe of this club.


He should also be a little fresher as he had no playoffs and no olympics....I am on the fence with Marbury,but yes,he deserves a clean slate under Coach Brown...


----------

