# Is it the coach or the roster?



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

Is Larry Brown making the most of his team's talents? Is the team making the most of LB's talents? I think that generally Larry Brown is a brilliant coach but that said, he definately wants to be the guy in control of an organization. He has his own coaching philosophy and believes that his way is "the right way." A team like the Knicks, with an enormous amount of talent that maybe could have shown itself with a looser coach in charge, has not been able to capitalize on the ability of its players. Sure their horrible defensively but shouldn't they at least be a little better offensively? Marbury is a 20ppg guy, JC is a 17ppg guy, Q averaged 17 in LA, and Curry averaged 16 last year. Add Frye to the picture and we should be Pheonix Suns status. Larry Brown's teams will not win playing a style suited to their talents. When people say that Larry Brown makes teams better what they're really saying is that he makes them play closer to his coaching philosophy.

Can LB an the Knicks roster coexist or will one or the other have change drastically. What would the you all like to see stay more (and win) our roster or our coach? This is supposing an offensive minded coach could play to the strengths of individual players (for example Flip Saunders).

Personally, i would like to see the roster stay because i think our team has basically lost its identity since we've been trading players left and right. I want to see our team maintain some sort of identity and improve both collectively and individually as much as possible. If we had a coach who could play to our roster's strengths thats what i would want to see. Also i think that LB being the guy in charge, is definately being made to look like the one who's right and the players are made to seem like the ones who are ****ing up.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*You can't do that..*

...just add up the guy's averages. It will never work out. Every situation is different. You'd be better off looking at there %. That is not that impressive, unless you take the BEST years. This team lacks some very important pieces, such as a REAL go to guy at the end....also somone who can help get a STOP when they need it...and lastly, they need a real leader. They put all their money on the hope that Marbury would be the leader and go to guy, but he is not, and never will be, that guy. Ideally, he is a support part, not the main piece.


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

Do you think that the Knicks would be playing better with the roster they have with a different coach?


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Maybe in the short term*

I have no doubt more games could be won if the team were coached to win NOW. I don't think LB is trying to lose games, its just that I believe he is trying to set the team up to be better later, which is more important since this team----as constructed----will not challenge for a title. Only a championship matters; coming in 2nd or 3rd is nothing. Patience is needed. It'll all be clear by the end of the year.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*One more thing...*

While its fun to speculate on a different coach with the same roster, it's a moot point. I have a pretty solid hunch this team(roster) this team is going to change alot in the near future. If the Knicks really want Artest, he probably could be had via a 3 way trade with Atlanta. I have read where they like Marbury. They also have the money and could move Johnson to the 2. Next year they would be very, very tough. The Pacers like Harrington and the word is they'd like to have him back but the Hawks want no part of Artest.

Artest to NY..Harrington to the Pacers...Marbury to the Hawks. Juggle assorted filler player salaries to make it work. I would do it if we keep our young guys. We would need a PG but we really need one now. Whats the difference?


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Wow....*

Just checked the Hawks roster......they don't really have any high salaries to make the trade work(outside of JJ, who isn't going anywhere). Thats a rare problem. Back to the drawing board.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Maybe in the short term*



alphadog said:


> I have no doubt more games could be won if the team were coached to win NOW. I don't think LB is trying to lose games, its just that I believe he is trying to set the team up to be better later, which is more important since this team----as constructed----will not challenge for a title. Only a championship matters; coming in 2nd or 3rd is nothing. Patience is needed. It'll all be clear by the end of the year.


Alfa,we have been duped.....This team was built to win NOW...Unfortunately,it was built by Zeke,who is a super draft talent and abolutely ****ing clueless on what it takes to win....Where Zeke excels is putting a spin on things,and his newest is calling the team a rebuild?????

I applaud Zekes marketing abilities,but lets all get real..You can not rebuild when you are over the cap and have haned over you very valuable draft picks to Chitown for the luxury of having JC and Eddy...The 2006 pick is unconditional,and the 2007 pick can be swapped by Chicago at their option...So the worse we are,the better Chicago gets...

So you can see,Zeke is in full rebuild mode..Too bad he doesnt mention that its on behalf of Chicago..

Last but not least..How could this team win NOW,when last years team couldnt,and the players traded away are more productive than the new crap..I mean crop..

Eddy Curry canst stay healthy or out of foul trouble and Q is an abomination...And thats significantly better than Jerome James..say what you want,but the Thomas Brothers look like all stars compared to Zekes brilliant aquisitions......

Knick fans better hope that Coach Brown can reach Curry and teach him the fundamentals of Bball,Frye keeps it up and Woods/Ariza can be our 3....


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

^^^^ truth


have you seen the 06 draft class,.......there really isnt anything special about it right now.....


i also heard isiah say that when he was thinking about the trade for curry he thought would he take curry over anyone in the 06 draft class,.....and thats what ultimately led to his decision to give up the picks


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

ChosenFEW said:


> ^^^^ truth
> 
> 
> have you seen the 06 draft class,.......there really isnt anything special about it right now.....
> i also heard isiah say that when he was thinking about the trade for curry he thought would he take curry over anyone in the 06 draft class,.....and thats what ultimately led to his decision to give up the picks


I smell what the Zeke is cooking...But there is no way he ever could have envisioned this start,so I believe he was talking about a 12-24 pick,not a top 3....

I have been a big Zeke supporter,but its become very clear that he falls to hard in love with potential and not BBall IQ....


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

The point i was maybe trying to make was that all these players that we suddenly consider crap this season were much more productive with other coaches that maybe played to their styles more. I mean look at Q. Look at what Q has done in the past before coming to play for LB. Maybe Q's offense just won't get going under the system LB has in place. I think that it is not imperative to change the roster drastically every year for us to win a championship. Maybe we should show some dedication to the players we have and find a coach more suitable for them (obviously not gonna happen but just hypothetically) instead of making winning have to be about doing it Larry Brown's way. We have countless players w/All Star potential that simply play like **** when they are restricted to doing things LB's way. Sure i believe LB makes players better but he doesn't make them as good as they can be (Billups). Now that Larry Brown is on the Knicks though it is his team, no question about it. But could Isiah have thought a little before picking up a coach and a roster that had such glaring differences. Remember at the begining of the season ppl were saying that we were gonna be the Suns of the East? Now that Larry's in town it ain't happenin. Either we change our roster or we change our coach.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Truth.....*

We are indeed in full rebuilding mode...and in NY. We have a fine YOUNG nucleus at the 3,4,5...with some depth, besides. We could use a real good backcourt that plays defense and plays smart. Guards are the easiest to come by and besides....we have some guys that have trade value by virtue of talent and/or expiring contracts. I'm not supporting IT at all. I think competing wqs his first plan and he bombed horribly. There was/is nothing left to do but rebuild and I don't think the cap issues will hurt us that much. We traded picks for Curry and I STILL think he will be very good in the end...so at least now it looks like the picks were just used ahead of time. Remember the kid is young and plays the hardest position to fill. Frye is a good one. Lee and Ariza can play the 3 with Lee also shifting to the 4. Butler can play the 4/5. He is also just a baby. Not sure where Nate fits in but he is going to be AT LEAST a good spark/tempo player.NOw just maybe we will lose a piece or two to get another talented player but we have a chance now.

China....You have got to be kidding me, right? Q has never been anywhere near allstar caliber and, in fact, had his best year shooting as a rookie. If you graph his career, he has been going down slightly since he came in in % and has been up and down average-wise. You say countless allstars? We have one...Marbury, and he is not a regular allstar selectee. No one else on this team is remotely close. In fact, Frye has the best chance after Marbury. LB ain't goin anywhere, so you can guess changes will be made. Like IT said, nobody is safe but the young guns. BTW, Billups has been on record many times saying that LB made him a better player. As far as I can tell, he is the same player he was last year.....guess LB made him get to that level.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

alphadog said:


> We could use a real good backcourt that plays defense and plays smart. Guards are the easiest to come by and besides....


Yes I firmly believe you can get a "quality" backcourt, before a "quality" big man anyday of the week. 



alphadog said:


> Not sure where Nate fits in but he is going to be AT LEAST a good spark/tempo player.NOw just maybe we will lose a piece or two to get another talented player but we have a chance now.


Dog, I know it's early in the season, but I feel Nate is all hype and no substance. I ate what the media was feeding me about this kid, and now I have my doubts. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see him having a long and "productive" NBA career. 



alphadog said:


> China....You have got to be kidding me, right? Q has never been anywhere near allstar caliber and, in fact, had his best year shooting as a rookie. If you graph his career, he has been going down slightly since he came in in % and has been up and down average-wise.


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/quentin_richardson/index.html

You hit the nail on the coffin with the Q stats. He was never all-star material in his entire career. 

Good overall post Doggy!


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Chinatownballer said:


> Either we change our roster or we change our coach.


Well I for one know for a fact LB won't be leaving anytime soon. 50 million dollars is a whole lot of money to eat up don't cha think? Zeke said it, and I'm sure Knicks management agrees that the players will be the first to go if they can't get with LB's program. :wave:


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Kitty....*

This is what I have seen in Nate........I have seen him make life miserable for an opposing guard because of his strength and quickness. Few are stronger, few are quicker, and none (that I can think of) are quicker and stronger. So....I think he has the potential to be a defensive difference maker. He will get posted occassionally, but with good help D, it will be limited. Offensively, the guy has tools. He possesses a good handle and has a knack for getting to the hole. I think his J will improve to the point of having to be respected and his wide shoulders give him the ability to play bigger (ala Marbury). He will learn to finish better just as Frye will. The ONLY question I have with him at this point is his judgement, and as we know....some guys never seem to get it.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Truth.....*



alphadog said:


> We are indeed in full rebuilding mode...and in NY. We have a fine YOUNG nucleus at the 3,4,5...with some depth, besides. We could use a real good backcourt that plays defense and plays smart. Guards are the easiest to come by and besides....we have some guys that have trade value by virtue of talent and/or expiring contracts. I'm not supporting IT at all. I think competing wqs his first plan and he bombed horribly. There was/is nothing left to do but rebuild and I don't think the cap issues will hurt us that much. We traded picks for Curry and I STILL think he will be very good in the end...so at least now it looks like the picks were just used ahead of time. Remember the kid is young and plays the hardest position to fill. Frye is a good one. Lee and Ariza can play the 3 with Lee also shifting to the 4. Butler can play the 4/5. He is also just a baby. Not sure where Nate fits in but he is going to be AT LEAST a good spark/tempo player.NOw just maybe we will lose a piece or two to get another talented player but we have a chance now.


Alfa,all I see is a stud at the 4/5 and his name is Frye...I have always said that I would trade Sweetney for Curry every day of the week,but I am shocked how fundamentally unprepared Curry is.Alfa,he is young,but he is playing nowhere near the level of Frye.Hes not even rebounding as well as Frye..Thats pretty scary..

Ild like to be optomistic at the 3,but Ariza appears to have regressed this year..His jumper is horrific and what scares me more is that he has no handle.I believe you can improve your stroke,but I think ballhandling is a gift and either you have it or not at the age of 20...And if you ask me,Frye is a better 3 than Lee...Not that i am suggesting Frye play the 3..

But here is the good news....From the limited PT Woods has gotten,I see alot of talent and he is 6'9" 230....

My real question is why we insist on playing a half court game.....Frye,Ariza,JC,Nate,Woods and Lee can all motor...Let em run


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

*Alfa...*

What i meant by All Star Calliber player was Marbury, Crawford, Q, Frye, and Curry. Marbury and Frye we agree on. Q used to average like 17 a game, showing that he has serious offensive talents that he obviously hasn't shown this year. Crawford is a brilliant creator off the dribble who can score (last year 17.7ppg) and Curry has tremendous potential as well. The talent on our team is there but its not the right type of talent to fit into Larry Brown's gritty, defensive-minded, unselfish style of bball. If these guys were coached by someone who would let them play their game we would see a lot more from what this year has seemed like complete garbage. I think we could be a really good team with the players that we have but obviously not if they have to change their games to match LB's style. If we're gonna give the team to LB we'd might as well show no lloyalty to our players and simply ship off the majority of our players for hustling, athletic, defense-oriented players. And as for Billups, sure he got better under Larry Brown but have you seen the difference between last years Billups and this years Billups? Its been an utter explosion after Flip Saunders took over. LB gave him tools that he didn't have and Flip gave him the opportunity to use his old skills up to his potential as well as the one's Larry gave him. Check the stats if you want, Billups did not play to his potential under LB. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/chauncey_billups/index.html


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Wow, China...*

Son, you need to get into public relations work. You could make a dog turd sound like an ice cream sundae. Q didn't used to average 17...he did it once. Seventeen doesn't translate into serious offensive talent. JC is a brilliant creator? He has the physical ability to do it. I've also seen the SPORADIC penetration and creation, but the key word is, sporadic. Curry remains a raw talent(as Truth said above, and I will agree). Frye is nowhere near an allstar, yet, and whether he gets there or not remains to be seen. So we're back to Stephon and the Pips. I definately want you to write my next resume', though......

What you have to understand about this year's Billups is that Flip is an offensive coach. The team is scoring more as a rule. We'll see how that works in the playoffs when defense rules the court.

Truth, Curry has not had the benefit of a really good coach before, and he has been injured and not worked into shape. I like him, he has too many tools. If he got the same calls as Shaq, he'd be scoring 25+ now. Just a great low post game and amazing agility. He'll learn. Woods? I agree...lets see what the kid can do with some minutes. I do, however, like Lee at the 3. He has everything but the J, and he has a helluva lot better post game than any of the other SFs on the team. They can be very big with Lee, Curry, and Frye, without losing any athleticism. Just think, if you wanted to go really nuts, you could plug in Ariza and Nate to go with them. Probably have a ton of TOs but I'd pay to watch that unit go up and down with pressure D and Fastbreak O.....Lots of fun for your nickle.


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

OK, OK i am prone to exaggeration but why couldn't the players that were scoring so much last year scoring so much less this year. True, LarryB has his own vision of how a team wins but i, personally would love to see the Knicks play to their scoring potential. About Billups, thats exactly what i was pointing out: his huge improvement offensively, scoring, dishing, and getting fewer assists than last year. That's the type of improvement i would want to see in our players. Yes, i am very very nice to our players in terms of making them look good but i do see the truth behind their games. I mean come on, who wouldn't want the Knicks to be an exciting offensive-minded team?


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*A couple of points....*

1) Most of the guys you are talking about have gotten their points doing 1 on 1 stuff...not in the flow of a team oriented offense. Their are few players that can survive the extra defensive attention that type of play will bring in the playoffs. Thats one of the reason the Spurs are so tuff. Stop one guy and another option opens up...team play.


2) Billups is NOT an improved offensive player. He gets more looks in this type of offense that Flip runs. Is the team better off for it? I'm not sure they are since scoring was not a problem for the Pistons and defense wins. The Wolves could ALWAYS score when they were healthy, but it came primarily from one guy and then they couldn't stop anybody on a regular basis.

3) It is exciting to watch an offense oriented team but defense really DOES win titles. I would rather the Knicks play to their defensive potential. If they had been playing the type of defense they played in the first part of the season, they'd be close to .500 now. (That plus hit some damn FTs).


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

OK, basically i agree with you, but i would still want the Knicks to play better offensively. I wish somehow the offense and the defense wouldn't be an either or kindof thing. Our offense at this point is basically our point guards feeding our big men in the low post and waiting for them to do something. Even if everyone else was cutting we obviously shouldn't be relying on Jerome James and Eddy Curry to make the big passes. First of all we need to cut to the basket and second of all we should have our point guards draw defenses and make dishes to swishes. Obviously LB has more experience at this than i do but for me, considering the passing ability of our big men, we shouldn't be relying on the low post for offense. But the lack of movement is something that really bothers me. I'm assuming that he's been telling them to cut and that their not listening because otherwise i will have lost faith in the guy. And about Billups, you still haven't convinced me. In this new freedom Flip has given him, not only has he been scoring more but turning the ball over less and dishing out more assists. This is not simply Billups getting more touches, he's actually playing better and making his team better.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*I don't disagree with you...*

We DO need to improve the offense but look at it like this: Almost every team has to establish a low post game first. It makes the other stuff work much easier. With Curry hurt, we don't have a true low post guy and as you know, we are lacking at consistent perimeter shooting. Bottom line in my opinion is this: Curry and Frye will have to get better in the post before we make very much improvement on offense. It would help if Marbury would attack the basket 10-15 times a game instead of settling outside. He MUST become more of a vocal leader and lead by example. The young guys all need to play a lot of minutes...really as much as they can, unless the ball is being turned over too much (hear me, Nate?). I feel this team can be close to a .500 team without sacrificing LB's system. Remember...its going to be a long strange trip.


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

Yep, much offense needs to be improved. I just got the Knicks complete history DVD and watched game 7 of the 94 eastern conf finals against Larry Brown's Pacers. It was pretty weird seeing a young AD and LB and seeing a post presence like Ewing's compared to what we have now. All i know is that someone is going to have to draw double teams and someone is going to have to cut to the basket (like LB's Pacers). Kind of off topic but something i've been wondering is why Nate isn't in the game more in tight games. He has shown that when it counts he can really play well. I'm not just talking about the buzzerbeater in Philly but also how well he defends, hustles, rebounds (if only Steph chased lose balls like Nate did). Also, if you look at the Philly game i remember he made a huge momentum shifting three before his game winner. He's pretty clutch and i think he deserves more burn considering, sadly, at 5'9 he's basically our best perimeter defender. About the turnovers i think their worth it considering all the other things he does while he's on the floor. One weird thing about Nate is that he's capable of sometime's making really nice passes and really playing the point but, unfortunately, it happens as consistently as Crawford scores 20. Maybe i'm a little bit too faithful in Nate but he seems to have the tools to be more than what other people on this board have affectionately reffered to as an "off the bench sparkplug."


----------



## chrisr87 (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: A couple of points....*



alphadog said:


> 1) Most of the guys you are talking about have gotten their points doing 1 on 1 stuff...not in the flow of a team oriented offense. Their are few players that can survive the extra defensive attention that type of play will bring in the playoffs. Thats one of the reason the Spurs are so tuff. Stop one guy and another option opens up...team play.
> 
> 
> 2) Billups is NOT an improved offensive player. He gets more looks in this type of offense that Flip runs. Is the team better off for it? I'm not sure they are since scoring was not a problem for the Pistons and defense wins. The Wolves could ALWAYS score when they were healthy, but it came primarily from one guy and then they couldn't stop anybody on a regular basis.
> ...


Actually, according to analysts offense WAS a problem for the Pistons in the Finals. And that is said to be the cause of their losses.
And to China, the reason Q isn't doing what he did last year is because in Phoenix he was probably the 4th and 5th option on the court. Actually, come to think of it, he wasn't exactly an option. He'd spot of and knock down threes. They didn't regularly run plays for him. It's just pick and rolls with Amare, and if they converged on him or Nash the Q would go to the open spot and hit the three. Under Larry Brown's offense this isn't possible. They are not a running team. If you watch the Knicks, they are a stand-still team without a flow or a rhythm.
Also, though I've criticized Larry Brown in recent weeks, the Knicks are just a bad ballclub. Aside from Antonio Davis, no one on that team that gets significant minutes has a high basketball IQ or even remotely high. And on the defensive end, they don't play good team defense. Marbury and Nate, at times play tenacious individual defense, but they are inconsistent. Nate always brings the hustle and effort but he just doesn't know how to play defense. He tends to foul the guy or pressure too hard and let the guy pass him after getting picked off.
Overall, there's enough blame to go around, the players, the coach, but I think most of the blame should be placed on Isiah. He worked so hard on trying to make the Knicks an athletic team that he forgot there were other important characteristics and skills needed on the floor. Last year, while Ariza's stock was still high, they should've traded him along with another player for a decent SF. Ariza's lack of basketball IQ, virtually no ball handling ability, bad lateral movement, and slow leaping ability hurts the team. Brown plays him because really he's the only SF on the team. Then there's Curry, great physical specimen. Ends there, though. On the offensive end, I can tolerate him. But watching him play defense is like watching Shaq shoot free throws. For someone as long and athletic as Curry, you'd think he would play at least a little defense. But that's the thing with the Knicks, besides Davis, no one wants to play defense. Everyone else just wants to score. Hell, even retardedly terrible players like Jerome James starts calling for the ball and taking fadeaway jumpers. If the Knicks are to succeed now or even in the future, they must stick to their young crop of talent.
Lineup:
PG Crawford (better pg than marbury. doesn't mean he's good, but he's better)
SG Marbury (better at the 2. he's the best offensive player on the squad and the pg responsibilities keep him from using his strengths plus he's just a bad pg. I wouldn't even call him that)
SF Lee
PF Davis
C Frye (Curry injured)

Players that should rotate in:
Robinson
Richardson
Taylor (he has shown effort in recent weeks. he's starting to rebound and defend.)
Butler (I don't know why he only gets garbage time. he has very polished offensive skills for such a young player who hasn't played much.)
Hardaway


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Reply...*

First to China......Nate is way to TO prone a times, and its hard to have a TO machine in there unless you have the lead. Trying to come back...which we always are...is not possible when you have to protect every possession. 

Next up, Chris.....Curry has more than physical skills. He is a decent shotblocker when healthy and is nearly unstoppable down low when he is not double-teamed. He must yet learn to pass quicly oout of the double teams. Whether or not he learns to do this will define him as a player. Star or mediocre? As far as his man defense goes, he is not good, but he is still better than Ewing who got beat by everybody, even when he was young. He WAS, however, a better shotblocker than Curry. Ariza has faults but yoou are simply wrong about his jumping. It happens to be one of his best attributes...quick and high off the floor. I'm just not sure where you got that one. Its hard to tell about his IQ because of his utter lack of experience and playing for 3 coaches in a year and a half. Agree with you on most of the young guys (higher on Curry and Arizaand lower on JC and Marbury) but I just don't like Taylor....despite his improvement in certain areas, he is a black hole when the ball gets to him.


----------



## chrisr87 (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: Reply...*



alphadog said:


> First to China......Nate is way to TO prone a times, and its hard to have a TO machine in there unless you have the lead. Trying to come back...which we always are...is not possible when you have to protect every possession.
> 
> Next up, Chris.....Curry has more than physical skills. He is a decent shotblocker when healthy and is nearly unstoppable down low when he is not double-teamed. He must yet learn to pass quicly oout of the double teams. Whether or not he learns to do this will define him as a player. Star or mediocre? As far as his man defense goes, he is not good, but he is still better than Ewing who got beat by everybody, even when he was young. He WAS, however, a better shotblocker than Curry. Ariza has faults but yoou are simply wrong about his jumping. It happens to be one of his best attributes...quick and high off the floor. I'm just not sure where you got that one. Its hard to tell about his IQ because of his utter lack of experience and playing for 3 coaches in a year and a half. Agree with you on most of the young guys (higher on Curry and Arizaand lower on JC and Marbury) but I just don't like Taylor....despite his improvement in certain areas, he is a black hole when the ball gets to him.


Ewing was an incredible low post defender in his prime. I'm not sure what you mean by him getting beat by people because rarely in that time was a big man too agile. He could just sit in the paint and block shots. Ewing was a great defender. And I already spoke about how dominant Curry was OFFENSIVELY. But he needs huge improvements on his defense. He is really not a good shotblocker. And about Ariza, I've watched him play. He doesn't have strong legs. He can jump decently high, but his length exaggerates his jump and he really doesn't get off the floor that quickly, at least as quickly as you would think. And he has terrible balance. When he jumps in the air, he has a difficult time regaining composure when he lands. The only thing useful about him at this point is his length. Though he isn't very quick, his long arms frustrates players when he's defending them. At least that's the way I've seen it in Ariza.
About Taylor, I didn't like him much either. I still don't, but I'm comparing him to the other Knicks bench players. I'm talking bout Malik Rose and Jerome James. They should not be active.
Honestly, other than Frye and Lee and maybe Butler and Davis, I don't like anyone on the Knicks right now. Nobody else hustles. They play like they don't care. Quentin Richardson is borderline with me because he has shown signs of dependability. And Marbury used to be good till he started playing passively. Jamal is just instant offense. I don't see him playing 38 minutes a game on any team ever and being productive. I think it's a good move for him to come off the bench if we had a point guard to take pressure off Marbury. I think the Knicks should take a page from San Antonio's playbook. They begin the game with Parker going insane and driving into the paint every play and either getting fouled, getting a layup, or dishing for open shots. When penetration gets closed off, they start going to Duncan in the post. They should do that with Curry and Marbury.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*We agree on some, not others*

But the last thing I will say on this thread is about Ewing. I loved the big guy band was delirious when we got the first pick but he was never a good man on man defender in the pros. It was hard to tell in college because he was the last line of defense and rarely lined up against a quality big man. No matter what you or any other person thinks, he never lived up to his defensive reputation in the pros...by a long shot. Most NBA folks expected him to be the next Russell or even better. On the plus side, he turned out way better on offense than anyone thought.


----------



## Rockets111 (Oct 29, 2005)

*Re: We agree on some, not others*

with the probable lineup at the beginning of the season being
marbury
crawford
richardson
frye
curry
it is surprising how they are not at or above 500, they have a wicked talented team its just that lb doesnt want it like that and hes [STRIKE]gay[/STRIKE], so if they had a different coach than they would probably win more games.......

THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'M GOING TO EDIT ONE OF YOUR POSTS ON THIS BOARD. REFRAIN FROM POSTING INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS UNLESS YOU WANT A NICE VACATION. 

CHECK YOUR PM'S


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

*Re: We agree on some, not others*

Let's take a look at the centers. The most productive is Butler. The money is allocated to Curry and James. Power forwards; the best is Frye. The money is allocated to Rose and Taylor. Small forwards; the best is Ariza. The money is allocated to Richardson. Shooting gaurds; the best is Crawford. The money is allocated to Houston and Hardaway, neither of whom are even on the team. Finally, you have point guard which is the only place where there is actually any justice. Mis-allocation of funds can not be placed on coaching. It's like having NYC as a nice, strong marketplace and putting all your funds into advertising in Montana. Isiah is perhaps the most incompetent at what he does in this business and the only thing that's saving him any face is the fact that he's buddies with Larry Brown. He absolutely deserves to be fired.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

> We are indeed in full rebuilding mode.


ive never seen a team rebuild with the highest payroll in the NBA


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Money has little to do with it.*

The fact that they have the highest payroll just makes it more difficult to make moves. Most of these guys will end up gone by next year. I like Curry but I have never seen a guy get jobbed by the refs more than him. He deserves about thalf the calls that go against him. Frye is next....he gets NO respect by the officials at all. I know he's a rook but its hard to win when two of your young guys that your team is centered around get whistled for breathing too hard.

To Rockets111....your reference to LB being gay gives away the fact that you are a young kid. Could you maybe make posts with at least a little bit of substance?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

kconn61686 said:


> ive never seen a team rebuild with the highest payroll in the NBA


I never seen an NBA team become the Buffalo Bills of basketball until recently, so we have something in common.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: We agree on some, not others*



urwhatueati8god said:


> Let's take a look at the centers. The most productive is Butler. The money is allocated to Curry and James. Power forwards; the best is Frye. The money is allocated to Rose and Taylor. Small forwards; the best is Ariza. The money is allocated to Richardson. Shooting gaurds; the best is Crawford. The money is allocated to Houston and Hardaway, neither of whom are even on the team. Finally, you have point guard which is the only place where there is actually any justice. Mis-allocation of funds can not be placed on coaching. It's like having NYC as a nice, strong marketplace and putting all your funds into advertising in Montana. Isiah is perhaps the most incompetent at what he does in this business and the only thing that's saving him any face is the fact that he's buddies with Larry Brown. He absolutely deserves to be fired.


Unfortunately,I have to agree with you..Zeke is a superscout,but he absolutely sucks at everything else..He takes Potential over BB IQ and passion and its a recipe for disaster.....

For the record,Curry scares the **** out of me..So fundamentally flawed and he has shown no improvement in 4 years..Still cant board,still cant pass,and has an unrefined offensive game and is never in shape...Not too mention heart condition and hes costing us an unconditional 2006 pick and a swap of the 2007....

Zeke is the polar opposite of layden and neither extreme works


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Curry requires patience...*

He came right out of HS and has played for several coaches so far. I really feel he is getting the shaft by the officials....all things equal, I think he'd give us 15 and 7 or so right now. I have seen him board well, so I know he can...I just hope he's no TT in that regard. I disagree with you on his offensive game. I think it is pretty good considering his age and level of experience. His biggest flaw is figuring out the double and triple teams. He needs to get much, much better as a passer out of them. If he was so ineffective as a low post scorer, he wouldn't have to be double teamed...and he is whenever he touches it. I think if he could stay on the court for 34-36 min. he would average 20 and 10 with a coouple of blocks. he needs a good coach for a longer period than 1 year. More than anything, this team needs a tough defender. Artest would go a long way toward curing what ails us. Curry, Frye, Lee, Artest, and whoever we can get that would be a tough, tenacious PG would make us much better in a hurry. A bit weak on the outside but hell on wheels inside and on the break. Bring JC and Nate off the bench....I really don't think this team is as bad as we have shown....but I can't understand the lack of passion and energy most times.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Curry requires patience...*

I have a lot of patience with Curry more than any other Knick on this team. I see his flaws and it can be easily corrected, he just needs more time and work. We just a soft team right now that lacks any type of defensive intensity, and we fail to make the opposing team pay the price for coming into the paint. 

Another poster on this board claimed that Knick posters are soft on this board. Well, how can you get excited and amped when your team is playing like a bunch of jelly fish, without the sting? How can you get excited about winning less than 10 games? It's all about results, no one is going to thump their chest or stump their feet after losing time and time again. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. From the posts I've read from last season, the aura was the same. Until we see a turnaround, the tone will *still *be the same.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> how can you get excited and amped when your team is playing like a bunch of jelly fish, without the sting?


LOL, good point :clap:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Curry requires patience...*



alphadog said:


> He came right out of HS and has played for several coaches so far. I really feel he is getting the shaft by the officials....all things equal, I think he'd give us 15 and 7 or so right now. I have seen him board well, so I know he can...I just hope he's no TT in that regard. I disagree with you on his offensive game. I think it is pretty good considering his age and level of experience. His biggest flaw is figuring out the double and triple teams. He needs to get much, much better as a passer out of them. If he was so ineffective as a low post scorer, he wouldn't have to be double teamed...and he is whenever he touches it. I think if he could stay on the court for 34-36 min. he would average 20 and 10 with a coouple of blocks. he needs a good coach for a longer period than 1 year. More than anything, this team needs a tough defender. Artest would go a long way toward curing what ails us. Curry, Frye, Lee, Artest, and whoever we can get that would be a tough, tenacious PG would make us much better in a hurry. A bit weak on the outside but hell on wheels inside and on the break. Bring JC and Nate off the bench....I really don't think this team is as bad as we have shown....but I can't understand the lack of passion and energy most times.


alfa,I am mystified by this teams play.....


----------



## chrisr87 (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: Curry requires patience...*

Lotta love for Curry on this board. The reason he is double-teamed is not because he is such a dominating presence down low. If you watch, it's because he doesn't know how to pass, and teams are capitalizing on his weaknesses. He has one move and it's that little dropstep hookshot towards the middle. If you take him out of that comfort zone, he doesn't produce. And if you're a good player, doesn't matter if you come out of HS or not, you should be at least close to your potential by your 4th year in the league. I don't ever see Curry averaging 20 and 10. His lack of passion and hustle will prevent that. He's all about points. Rebounds and blocks mean absolutely nothing to him. The max I expect from Curry is 17 and 7.
The Knicks should just go back to playing from the inside-out. At least they made the playoffs doing that a few years back ;\ But 7-19, come on, that's just ridiculous.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Guess some of the media folks think it's the coach as well. 



> The scapegoats have already been shoved to the front of this clutter. Isiah Thomas is easy, because he assembled this calamity, because his trades have been an endless string of Brock-for-Broglio disasters. Stephon Marbury is even easier, because as much as everyone wants the happy New York ending, he's never looked more unhappy or played more impassively.
> 
> So far, Larry Brown has been allowed to breeze. That stops now. Because lately Brown has gone about his business with the urgency of man trying to see how quickly he can be offered a buyout, the quicker to make one more end run out of town. He has been every bit as disappointing across his first 27 games as any of the players he coaches so haphazardly. We knew it would only be a matter of time before Brown used his favorite media mascots to try to remind everyone that Isiah picked these players, and he merely inherited them. That happened in record time. Now, he swaps verbal fisticuffs with Marbury. It is the coldest kind of cold war: a star player and a star coach who can't stand to be in the same gymnasium.


http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/59680.htm


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

I was prob one of the most excited people when I heard LB was going to be our coach. This is not how I thought he would handle himself.


----------



## Chinatownballer (Oct 13, 2005)

Wow, this thread is still going on after two weeks. I'm proud of myself...

Anyway, what the hell did i miss while in Athens. Since when is David Lee Dirk Nowitzki?! This is insane! Have the Knicks shown any signs of improvement over the last few games? By the way, Nate is definately underrated defensively. Sure, on offense he likes to pretend he's Iverson and turn the ball over every other play, but on defense he can really play. How has Curry played lately?


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Have the Knicks shown any signs of improvement over the last few games?


Why yes they have. They beat the suns in a triple overtime ther other day. :biggrin:


----------



## martymar (Jan 5, 2006)

It's the coach and isiah thomas


----------



## chrisr87 (Jul 3, 2005)

It's not that Nate is a good defender. It's that he does something no other Knick does every game every minute he plays, he hustles. Nate doesn't always play smart, but he always plays hard. That's why he's a starter. He does make a lot of mistakes defensively like: unnecessary fouls, playing non-shooters to close and then letting them pass him, jumping on peoples backs (he does this quite often, funny though seeing him get rebounds off over centers). But all he needs is a little bit of tutelage and experience and I think he could be a solid player in the league.


----------

