# Frank Williams should be the starting PG!



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Frank Williams should be the starting PG until proven otherwise. He has earned the position. The Knicks were winning games with him in the starting lineup. The Suns were losing games with Stephon Marbury in the starting lineup. Therefore, Williams must be better, because all that matters is the W.

Marbury should come off the bench until he proves that he is a winner like Frank Williams.


----------



## MagnusPinus (Aug 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> Frank Williams should be the starting PG until proven otherwise. He has earned the position. The Knicks were winning games with him in the starting lineup. The Suns were losing games with Stephon Marbury in the starting lineup. Therefore, Williams must be better, because all that matters is the W.
> 
> Marbury should come off the bench until he proves that he is a winner like Frank Williams.


Emhh...U are right.. but:shy: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: that's what Isiah would tell u..


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Come on Rashidi.. Quit being ridiculous.. Williams did earn that spot.. Now its Marbury's, fair enough.. If you dont want Frank, I'm sure the Lakers would trade Fisher for him.. Cook and Williams would be awesome in LA, just like at Illinois.. :shy: 

Your just mad your lover Eisley got traded right?


----------



## hatnlvr (Aug 14, 2003)

Well Williams did earn the spot from Eisley and Ward. But let's get real here, we just got our most coveted superstar PG!!!


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

*ha*

FRANK WILLIAMS?????

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Rashidi,you and eisly will love it in phoenix...ill check fares for you


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

*ha*

hey frank.. is that you on our board??(Rashidi)

You got the computer hooked up already in Phoenix?


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> The Knicks were winning games with him in the starting lineup. The Suns were losing games with Stephon Marbury in the starting lineup. Therefore, Williams must be better, because all that matters is the W.
> 
> Marbury should come off the bench until he proves that he is a winner like Frank Williams.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: One of the worst arguments I've ever heard!:laugh:


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Damian what you tend to not notice, is that Rashidi has bashed Frank Williams 24/7 because he was in love with Eisley 24/7. Now that Eisley is gone he's being retarded about starting Frank over Marbury.. Its all good but stupid :laugh:


----------



## osman (Jul 29, 2003)

Well the Knicks lost to the Cavs and Marbury played like crap, so maybe they should play williams.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I did not love Eisley 24/7, but apparantly not believing the inexperienced version of Moochie Norris was any better is viewed as treason on Knick boards.



> One of the worst arguments I've ever heard!


Oh really? Well, what do you know.

Marbury sucked in his debut. And what is most notable about the game the Knicks lost is that Frank Williams DID NOT PLAY.

Had he started over Marbury, the Knicks undoubtedly would have been more successful than they were with Howard Eisley and Charlie Ward in the starting lineup.

Marbury is a loser until proven otherwise. I bet if Frank Williams played he could have managed more than 8 points and 8 assists. In fact I predict he would have risen to the challenge of Lebron James and gotten a career high 25 points and 10 assists.

Instead, we have this heartless loser in the starting lineup. I blame this on our coaching. Don Chaney has benched Frank Williams continually this season, and now he's doing it when Frank should clearly be starting.

No, wait. It's too easy to blame Chaney. Yes, I blame Isiah Thomas. He made this trade to give him an excuse to fire Chaney. I predict that when Marbury's perennial losing costs Chaney his job, then Williams will be re-inserted into the starting lineup. Damn it, that Isiah is dasterdly. It brings tears to my eyes to know that his name is a reference to a biblical prophet.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Fact....the Knicks were more successful when Williams started over Ward and Eisly...numbers dont lie...But I am not sure what point you are getting at

Didnt frank sit because he has a groin injury??

Yes the Knicks lost

I dont thikn anyone on this board has ever said Frank Williams will lead them to the promised land.Most Williams supporters had seen enough of Ward and definetly Eisly.#We needed to see if Williams could play or not and what was the risk??Instead of winning 3 out of 10 games we win 2 out of 10??BIG FUUKKING deal.We would put him back on the bench and not resign him...

But,the fact is he played VERY well when given the opportunity and the Knicks won more than they lost...Thats it ....period

Just because you were an Eisly supporter and didnt think Williams deserved a shot,or wasnt ready and was wrong,GET THE #$%$#@# OVER IT...The fun part of the board and sports is having an opinion,voicing it and playing GM..We are all wrong some of the time...But its part of the game..You just dont stop.And you really do debate with yourself....

Frank Williams played very well..he looked like a leader...The team reponded to him..Get the $%^^& over your eisly/ward obcession and move on.Talk about Starbury...Do you like the trade

.Or move to Phoenix and hook up with Eisly


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Marbury sucked in his debut. And what is most notable about the game the Knicks lost is that Frank Williams DID NOT PLAY.


Rashidi

Putting all sarcasm aside for the moment, I'm just curious to hear if you like the trade or not. You don't have to go into all the pros and cons (you can if you'd like) but I'd just like hear a thumbs up or down from you on it, if you would.


----------



## solo (Nov 29, 2002)

Thats just a joke, sure he earned his spot, but it was from Charlie Ward and Howard Eisley, not superstar/all-star Stephon Marbury who is the first superstar PG here since Fraizer. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that Isiah is gonna bench Marbury its just a joke.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

good luck getting a thumbs up or down.......

I had to write a dissertation on functional fitness just to back up my opinion on Sweetney while he rambled on about his ability to box guys out though he has skinny arms

I will respond to your question.....

I was in the tear down build em up camp.
That wasnt happening...

I like the trade

But if I was the GM,I would have tried to swing a deal for Rahim (maybe terry)and kept most of my draft picks,lampe or vujanic..


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> 
> I was in the tear down build em up camp.
> ...


That's me too. When I couldn't forsee us getting an all star I thought let's trash and burn., This seemed like an opportunity worth a gamble.

[/QUOTE]But if I was the GM,I would have tried to swing a deal for Rahim (maybe terry)and kept most of my draft picks,lampe or vujanic..


> Sure, but there's plenty enough people who feel we stole Marbury as it is. We played the cards we had, and they played theirs. It's kinda like we traded 4 cards that we never got to look at for an ace (king, (queen?) whatever you want to call him). If all your other cards are crap that's a bad move, your better of trying for a low pair, but if some of your other cards are face cards maybe your ace gives you a winning hand.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

hmmmmm....see my issue is,and perhaps I am wrong,is between Williams and possibly Vujanic out point guard situation isnt that bad....Even ward was servicable

To me,the whole problen was Dyss's injury and the very real risk he would never get his game back...

If we could have swung a deal for Rahim,maybe by trading KT ,Ward and Sweetney,I think we would have been a very good team with possible huge upside with Vujanic,maybe Lampe and a draft pick...

To me we had an ace of diamonds,an ace of spades and the Jack,queen and king of spades..So we had a pair of aces and four spades..Do you bury 3 cards,keep the pair of aces or do you bury the ace of diamonds and go for the royal flush(i know there are other winning hands..i.e flush,straight


----------

