# Is it just me, or was Eddy Curry actually good?



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)




----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

So what is the point of the thread? To discuss Eddy or make a gallery?


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Eddy is a very good inside offensive player.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Mr.Montross said:


> Eddy is a very good inside offensive player.


That's a very limited part of the game. That's what makes him very very average. Very good post player. Terrible rebounder. Terrible defender. Terrible shot blocker / shot changer. Terrible passer. Terrible intangibles. Black hole. Too many turnovers. No leadership ability. Low bball IQ.


----------



## Attila (Jul 23, 2003)

That's why he needs to play along side Tyson Chandler!


----------



## Fred (Sep 18, 2007)

Eddy could be unstoppable in the post if he wanted to be. He has all the skills to. But he's terrible defensively and a man his size can't rebound worth a damn. Plus I think, mentally, playing in Chicago was just too hard on him. He needed a change of venue.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

He sure does look much slimmer in a few of those old pictures.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> He sure does look much slimmer in a few of those old pictures.


They took the Chicago out of Eddy.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

haha - somebody wants to start a 16 page thread.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

how long will it be before someone posts that he's the second leading scoring center........oooops!:biggrin:


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

I think Eddy has more strengths then his worst detractors credit him for and his weaknesses make a far greater impact than his biggest fans credit him for. 

I think he's perfectly suited to be the first big man off the bench who you bring into to be an offensive weapon. As a starter, his offense isn't well rounded enough. The offense breaks down into Curry trying to beat a double or triple team while refusing to pass out, or 4 guys on the perimeter trying to move the all around. He's an outstanding isolation / one on one offensive player, but he hasn't (thusfar) been able to blend his game to become a good team offensive player. 

On defense, he was just atrociously bad the past 2 years, and last year especially. I watched about 140 Knick games over the past 2 years, and he is so much worse defensively in new york than Chicago. I think it's because Isiah told him to protect himself from fouls and to save himself for offense (of course just a theory) because he almost runs away from people who drive at him. He's definitely bulked up more (and a lot of it is fat) which has slowed his defensive reaction time considerably, but made him even harder to stop offensively when they let him push people around (though in fairness, I think Eddy doesn't get away with nearly as much pushing Shaq has during his career). 

As a role player, he's outstanding at giving you some great interior scoring, especially if you need to mix up the pace, your perimeter offensive options need a breather, you have a great match up, or you want to generate fouls on opposing big men. He can do a lot of very positive things on offense for you. Unfortunately his defensive flaws and inability to kick the ball out to the perimeter effectively limit his overall use. If he could learn to pass well out of the post or find cutters then he could be one of the most dominant offensive players in the league regardless and make up for anything bad he does on the defensive end. Going into year number 7 that just doesn't strike me as a likely development to his game though. 

I do think Curry would be a great player for the Bulls to have back again if we used him for about 25-28 minutes a night as a situational player. I just don't think he's someone you can build around. Of course there are very few players that you can build around, and I think Curry gets a little extra hate due to all the people who view him as a franchise player.


----------



## Brothaman33 (Feb 21, 2006)

he doesnt want it bad enough


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I've never seen Curry as a very sub-par defender. I'd rank him about average, but you can hardly hold it against him if his coach is telling him to save himself on defense. He probably bothered Skiles to no end, but he generally did fine and, managed correctly, certainly helped us.


----------



## Fred (Sep 18, 2007)

He was and still is awful at rebounding. that doesn't help his defenisve cause.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rebound Rate wise, Curry is around the level of a Troy Murphy, Mark Blount, Andres Nocioni, Mikki Moore, Channing Frye. 

He's # 11 in the NBA in eFG. Nice. Money in the bank.

I never understood why someone would hate Curry for not being a "franchise center." He's certainly not paid as such. That being said, he's an above average NBA center, and the 2nd best scoring center in the league... a rare commodity. Especially for a team that needs a post presence.

Its interesting to note that the last year under Skiles, Skiles chose to play Curry the 2nd most minutes on the team in games he was available, and that he was the team's leading scorer.

Can't pass well. Turns the ball over too much. These two things hold him back from being a true franchise center, IMO. He's a weapon though. We could use him.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

Fred said:


> He was and still is awful at rebounding.


Not to mention conditioning, being a Role Model, and a leader.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> That being said, he's an above average NBA center, and *the 2nd best scoring center in the league*... a rare commodity. Especially for a team that needs a post presence.


15 posts......my over/under was 10.......lol

the bulls could use *lots* of guys.....when's the thread for dwight howard's acquisition starting?

considering there's likely less than 10 quality centers in today's NBA, giving curry his props is like having the only date with hair at a baldheaded women's convention.......:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> considering there's likely less than 10 quality centers in today's NBA


I agree, a quality center is a very rare commodity.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree, a quality center like Eddy Curry is a very rare commodity.


fixed


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Again, Curry is a very good inside offensive presense.

A one trick wonder, thus far.

If Isiah loses his job due to this lawsuit, Curry's status is up in the air.

And Bulls got a TERRIFIC DEAL when they traded Curry.

Curry refused to have his heart checked for the Bulls.

How can Bulls trading Curry have been anything but good?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Mr.Montross said:


> Again, Curry is a very good inside offensive presense.
> 
> A one trick wonder, thus far.
> 
> ...


Hm, um, uh, well, let me scratch my head about this one now....

His inside scoring is JUST what we lack to take us to the next level?


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

dougthonus said:


> I think Eddy has more strengths then his worst detractors credit him for and his weaknesses make a far greater impact than his biggest fans credit him for.
> 
> I think he's perfectly suited to be the first big man off the bench who you bring into to be an offensive weapon. As a starter, his offense isn't well rounded enough. The offense breaks down into Curry trying to beat a double or triple team while refusing to pass out, or 4 guys on the perimeter trying to move the all around. He's an outstanding isolation / one on one offensive player, but he hasn't (thusfar) been able to blend his game to become a good team offensive player.
> 
> ...


Pretty much said everything I was going to say. Curry could be an excellent scoring roleplayer. Someone in the low 20s to maybe 25mpg mold. But at his current salary it's difficult to construct a successful team without going way over the luxury threshold. That's why I think he'll never play for a truly successful team, moderate success is the most he can hope for.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Hm, um, uh, well, let me scratch my head about this one now....
> 
> His inside scoring is JUST what we lack to take us to the next level?


And his lack of inside defense, lack of rebounding, lack of defense, proneness to foul trouble and turnovers?

Where does that weigh into the equation?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Mr.Montross said:


> And his lack of inside defense, lack of rebounding, lack of defense, proneness to foul trouble and turnovers?
> 
> Where does that weigh into the equation?


Well considering we can't afford a Tim Duncan, I say Eddy Curry is the best choice. Besides defense and rebounding isn't necessarily needed from Eddy Curry if he was on our team, we have other players that greatly excel at those. I mean you can only build up your defense so much until it becomes redundant.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

maybe its just me but almost every time a former bull is mentioned it seems there is some sort of an automatic backlash ...it doesn't seem to be needed to me .

eddy curry is one of the best centers in the league whatever his flaws or strengths are as a player that is basically a fact to just about every nba observer.

I see him as a franchise player just not a all purpose do everything type franchise player .

he doesn't need to rebound much , the team finished 6th in rebounding margin last season , with zach randolph instead of channing frye they will probably finish better than that this year no matter what eddy does.

they could use some more defense though , but it may not be in the cards for him, he just seems like a guy who can guard his man well enough but not much of a team defnse guy.

passing ...he is not a good passer but he is showing improvement probably to the point it isn't a major concern anymore, the team before the injuries took hold in march were a top 10 team on offense so the criticism may be getting outdated, he seems to pass well enough to be the centerpiece of a pretty good offense now.

i dont think people think hustle and defense is a talent , some players just clearly play at a higher level of intensity than others , are quicker to the ball than others, see plays developing before they occur , eddy's talent is scoring and in a game thats decided by who scores the most points , its enough as long as he scores enough and well enough that it actually makes his teammates better for all the effort the opposing team has to put in to stop him from scoring.

like any star player he needs to be on a team that is suited to his talents , when he was a bull , the team covered for him on defense and rebounding and he gave them the scoring they needed, the team then had what appears to be a better future than it has now although its future still seems pretty bright because very1 knows they need interior scoring or it will be forced to win games and ultimately series' with jumpshots ...and its hard to win 4 consecutive series with jumpshots which is why people are still clamoring for an interior scorer of a decent caliber.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Eddie Curry is one of the best inside scoring Centers in the league.

Of course, a guy like Jason Collins makes him look foolish.

So, taking into account that Bulls WAY OVERPAID Ben Wallace, would you rather have, RIGHT NOW, have EC or BW?

And keep in mind what Bulls wound up with in exchange for Curry.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Let's put this in concrete terms. I'd trade Joe Smith and Noah for Eddie Curry if NY threw in a couple of unprotected first round picks. On second thought, maybe just Smith for Curry plus a pick swap.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Fred said:


> Eddy could be unstoppable in the post if he wanted to be. He has all the skills to.



Athletic ability, not skills.

But he does well with what he's got. He's getting long in the tooth--what you're getting from him now is mostly all you'll get.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I'd rank him about average, but you can hardly hold it against him if his coach is telling him to save himself on defense.


Before we start accepting this as fact, I'd like to know if it's been in writing anywhere.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> 2nd best scoring center in the league


Whatsa 'scoring center'? Is it a mish-mash position like point-forward? (or power small forward as Krause called Marcus Fizer?)

Or do you mean he's the 2nd best scorer among all centers?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> I see him as a franchise player


In the same sense that Duncan is, and that Durant is projected to be?

Like Shaq, where rings seem to follow him wherever he goes?


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

This thread boggles my mind. I can understand the *****ing about the Chandler trade since he's a solid player and we didn't get a good return for him, but Eddy Curry? Come on. In case somebody didn't notice we got two big men who look to be our starting PF and C for the next decade because of Eddy Curry.

Eddy Curry is one of the worst defenders in the league and also happens to play the most important defensive position. I've heard people refer to Curry as a good "scorer" countless time. You know why that is? It's because it can't be said that he is a good offensive player. At best he's average offensively. That whole post scoring thing doesn't really help your _team_ unless the scorer is a threat to pass out of the post.

*A team that has Eddy Curry playing more than 20 mpg will never win a title.* Everyone can feel free to quote me on that in their signatures. So basically you're paying 10 million per year to a backup center, I'd love to hear what Uncle Jerry would think about that.

Frankly, he seems like a player that doesn't give a **** about basketball. I mean he's 7 foot and huge so it's obvious that he has the physical tools to be a good basketball player, but his unwillingness to improve his game and get in shape lead me to conclude that he just doesn't care.

Needless to say I don't have a high opinion of Mr Curry.

EDIT: *Oh and if somebody could name me a championship team which had a starting center who was a black hole on offense and played no defense whatsoever, I'd love to hear it.*


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Fred said:


> Eddy could be unstoppable in the post if he wanted to be. He has all the skills to. But he's terrible defensively and a man his size can't rebound worth a damn. Plus I think, mentally, playing in Chicago was just too hard on him. He needed a change of venue.


passing is a skill that is essential to becoming an unstoppable post player.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> I've never seen Curry as a very sub-par defender. I'd rank him about average, but you can hardly hold it against him if his coach is telling him to save himself on defense. He probably bothered Skiles to no end, but he generally did fine and, managed correctly, certainly helped us.


Average defender? I've watched 100+ Knick games over the last two years and his defense is well below average. He's just not a smart basketball player. He doesn't know when to rotate. 6 foot tall point guards routinely drive the lane and Curry will either jump late or not jump at all and they get lay-up after lay-up. For his god given quickness and his size, he plays smaller than 6'11".

Classic example of Curry defense


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Snake said:


> This thread boggles my mind. I can understand the *****ing about the Chandler trade since he's a solid player and we didn't get a good return for him, but Eddy Curry? Come on. In case somebody didn't notice we got two big men who look to be our starting PF and C for the next decade because of Eddy Curry.
> 
> Eddy Curry is one of the worst defenders in the league and also happens to play the most important defensive position. I've heard people refer to Curry as a good "scorer" countless time. You know why that is? It's because it can't be said that he is a good offensive player. At best he's average offensively. That whole post scoring thing doesn't really help your _team_ unless the scorer is a threat to pass out of the post.
> 
> ...


Amen to this entire post. I completely agree. Teams have to force feed Curry to get touches. He is far from unstoppable in the post. He gets 5 touches, 2 baskets, 1 turnover, 1 missed shot, 1 bad pass. That's .667 from the field. He's a huge black hole. I can't wait to see him and Randolph on the floor at the same time with Marbury playing the point. Absolutely hilarious.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> I see him as a franchise player just not a all purpose do everything type franchise player .


Uh...doesn't franchise player imply you do everything? And do everything well? And are a leader? And lead by example in all facets of the game? Usually backup centers aren't considered franchise players. Although in the Knicks universe, he just might be.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Amen to this entire post. I completely agree. Teams have to force feed Curry to get touches. He is far from unstoppable in the post. He gets 5 touches, 2 baskets, 1 turnover, 1 missed shot, 1 bad pass. That's .667 from the field. He's a huge black hole. I can't wait to see him and Randolph on the floor at the same time with Marbury playing the point. Absolutely hilarious.


The arrival of Randolph in NY marks the end of IT's experiment with using Curry as the first option on offense. Randolph demands, and will get the ball on offense. When he gets it he will shoot it. Most of the easy rebounds will go to Randolph and Lee. What that means is that Curry will get a lot less shots and a lot fewer rebounds -- and a much smaller PER. I doubt this will inspire Curry to start playing tough defense. 

By mid-season the stupidity of putting both players on the floor at the same time will become evident to everyone and Curry will find himself spending extended periods on the bench... and gaining weight, since his usual routine is to use the regular season to get and stay in shape. That's his rosy scenario. 

Curry's nightmare is that IT gets fired and another coach takes over. When that occurs he will find his minutes dropping into the low 20s. His worst nightmare however, is that he gains weight and his heart problems reoccur -- a possibility that most folks seem to be in denial about.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

McBulls said:


> The arrival of Randolph in NY marks the end of IT's experiment with using Curry as the first option on offense. Randolph demands, and will get the ball on offense. When he gets it he will shoot it. Most of the easy rebounds will go to Randolph and Lee. What that means is that Curry will get a lot less shots and a lot fewer rebounds -- and a much smaller PER. I doubt this will inspire Curry to start playing tough defense.
> 
> By mid-season the stupidity of putting both players on the floor at the same time will become evident to everyone and Curry will find himself spending extended periods on the bench... and gaining weight, since his usual routine is to use the regular season to get and stay in shape. That's his rosy scenario.
> 
> Curry's nightmare is that IT gets fired and another coach takes over. When that occurs he will find his minutes dropping into the low 20s. His worst nightmare however, is that he gains weight and his heart problems reoccur -- a possibility that most folks seem to be in denial about.


So next season when he departs the Knicks, what do you think we could get for him?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Curry's nightmare is that IT gets fired and another coach takes over. When that occurs he will find his minutes dropping into the low 20s.


Wow. That's way lower than Skiles chose to play him as a Bull.

Skiles guided the Bulls to a style of ball that led to Eddy Curry being the leading scorer on the team.

Logging high 20’s, 30’s minutes isn’t associated with IT. PaxSkiles did the same thing.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow. That's way lower than Skiles chose to play him as a Bull.
> 
> Skiles guided the Bulls to a style of ball that led to Eddy Curry being the leading scorer on the team.
> 
> Logging high 20’s, 30’s minutes isn’t associated with IT. PaxSkiles did the same thing.


Skiles didn't have Randolph, who is nearly as good a low post scorer, and gets rebounds to boot. A coach will have to choose which no-D, black hole to play. My guess is that Randolph will win the toss for the most minutes.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

McBulls said:


> The arrival of Randolph in NY marks the end of IT's experiment with using Curry as the first option on offense. Randolph demands, and will get the ball on offense. When he gets it he will shoot it. Most of the easy rebounds will go to Randolph and Lee. What that means is that Curry will get a lot less shots and a lot fewer rebounds -- and a much smaller PER. I doubt this will inspire Curry to start playing tough defense.
> 
> By mid-season the stupidity of putting both players on the floor at the same time will become evident to everyone and Curry will find himself spending extended periods on the bench... and gaining weight, since his usual routine is to use the regular season to get and stay in shape. That's his rosy scenario.
> 
> Curry's nightmare is that IT gets fired and another coach takes over. When that occurs he will find his minutes dropping into the low 20s. His worst nightmare however, is that he gains weight and his heart problems reoccur -- a possibility that most folks seem to be in denial about.


This is the funniest post ever. The sad part about it though is that it's an accurate reflection of how the Knicks and Curry's season will play out, IMO. I think people have to look at Curry with excessive blind optimism, because the reality is much more difficult to accept.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

He's a one trick pony
He either fails or he succeeds
He gives his testimony
Then he relaxes in the weeds
He's got one trick to last a lifetime
But that's all a pony needs

-- Paul Simon


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wow. That's way lower than Skiles chose to play him as a Bull.
> 
> Skiles guided the Bulls to a style of ball that led to Eddy Curry being the leading scorer on the team.
> 
> Logging high 20’s, 30’s minutes isn’t associated with IT. PaxSkiles did the same thing.


The only alternatives to Curry were Chandler and Davis and they both played similar minutes. Curry played in the high 20s because Skiles had no choice but to play him that much. As I've said before, on a championship level team Curry wouldn't play more than 20 mpg.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Snake said:


> The only alternatives to Curry were Chandler and Davis and they both played similar minutes. Curry played in the high 20s because Skiles had no choice but to play him that much. As I've said before, on a championship level team Curry wouldn't play more than 20 mpg.


[strike]are you always such a freaking jerk?![/strike] unnecessary - KJ :lol:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Uh...doesn't franchise player imply you do everything? And do everything well? And are a leader? And lead by example in all facets of the game? Usually backup centers aren't considered franchise players. Although in the Knicks universe, he just might be.


of course not , franchise players are simply the guys you build your team around .

no franchise player does everything because no player is perfect.

garnett for example does everything just about except score for you down the stretch preferring to give the ball up ...the same thing could have easily have been said David robinson .


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Skiles guided the Bulls to a style of ball that led to Eddy Curry being the leading scorer on the team.


Yeah, and Grossman lead the Bears to the Superbowl.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> He's a one trick pony
> He either fails or he succeeds
> He gives his testimony
> Then he relaxes in the weeds
> ...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> of course not , franchise players are simply the guys you build your team around .
> 
> no franchise player does everything because no player is perfect.
> 
> garnett for example does everything just about except score for you down the stretch preferring to give the ball up ...the same thing could have easily have been said David robinson .


Alright then, I guess Curry is a franchise player for a team that averages 35 wins, never makes the playoffs and is bouncing ping-pong balls every year. Now I see your point.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

transplant said:


> He's a one trick pony
> He either fails or he succeeds
> He gives his testimony
> Then he relaxes in the weeds
> ...


Yeah, I swear he posts the same thing over and over.

Oh! You're talking about Eddy Curry! My bad.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Alright then, I guess Curry is a franchise player for a team that averages 35 wins, never makes the playoffs and is bouncing ping-pong balls every year. Now I see your point.


curry only a few years ago was the leading scorer on a bulls team that won a significant amount more than 35 games and had the 3rd best record in the conference , he is a much better player now then he was then.

if memory serves me garnett hasn't avg. 35 wins the last couple of years , it doesn't make him any less of a player .

but i guess a guy like yourself thinks differently for whatever reason.

in no dictionary or sphere of rational thought is a franchise player considered what you claimed they have to be earlier in this thread ( a mister do everything ...nash is a a 2 time mvp and cant play defense which is supposedly half the game...some would also consider him a franchise player as well) so i dont quite see your point and since you can only see mine through sarcasm i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Yeah, I swear he posts the same thing over and over.
> 
> Oh! You're talking about Eddy Curry! My bad.


Yeah, about the first hundred times the subject of Curry's game came up I tried to give thoughtful posts. The second hundred, I usually referred to him as a one-trick pony, with minimal explanation. Despite all the iterations, Curry's game hasn't changed appreciably. So from now on, I'm just going to plug in Simon's closing verse and be done with it. The topic is old and static. A simple cut-and-paste is more energy than it deserves.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> curry only a few years ago was the leading scorer on a bulls team that won a significant amount more than 35 games and had the 3rd best record in the conference , he is a much better player now then he was then.
> 
> if memory serves me garnett hasn't avg. 35 wins the last couple of years , it doesn't make him any less of a player .
> 
> ...


sarcasm aside, there's no rational way to compare the careers of curry and garnett (or nash) for that matter with respect to their body of work in connection with the moniker "franchise". curry's abilities (and achievements) aren't in the same stratosphere as two former mvp, rebound and assist leaders, who've *led* their teams to conference finals. garnett's been a 20/10 guy for the majority of his career, while curry's still waiting for his *first* playoff appearance which, i might add, will only occur IF the knicks' chemistry fools all and marbury, randolph, and crawford (not the law firm, lol) discover new games and subjugate their styles of play for the good of a playoff spot. 

conversly (and, imo) put garnett on that team in place of curry, and they're a *lock* for the playoffs.

me personally, i don't see that happening with curry. even *with* a supposed franchise center.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*eddy's rebounding.*

while he doesn't grab alot of boards he isn't the weak sister portrayed by many on this thread.

his size and athleticism means he has to be accounted for allowing others to rebound better .

his teams have outrebounded their opponents in each of the past 3 seasons and his last 2 as a knicks the knicks have been a better rebounding team(6th 2 seasons ago 2nd last season) than the bulls , and the bulls are actually a good rebounding team.(finishing 6th and 10th the last 2 seasons in rebounding margin)

in his last season as a bull the bulls outrebounded opponents by 1.1

the next season the margin was the same (1.1)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> sarcasm aside, there's no rational way to compare the careers of curry and garnett (or nash) for that matter with respect to their body of work in connection with the moniker "franchise". curry's abilities (and achievements) aren't in the same stratosphere as two former mvp, rebound and assist leaders, who've *led* their teams to conference finals. garnett's been a 20/10 guy for the majority of his career, while curry's still waiting for his *first* playoff appearance which, i might add, will only occur IF the knicks' chemistry fools all and marbury, randolph, and crawford (not the law firm, lol) discover new games and subjugate their styles of play for the good of a playoff spot.
> 
> conversly (and, imo) put garnett on that team in place of curry, and they're a *lock* for the playoffs.
> 
> me personally, i don't see that happening with curry. even *with* a supposed franchise center.


i'm not saying they are the same level of player .

all i am saying is just because a franchise decides to build around you doesn't automatically make them successful or make that player any less of a franchise player if they dont win, I used garnett because he is obviously a franchise player but his teams haven't been very successful lately.

i used nash because he has never been a good defender but no disputes he is the suns franchise player or at the very least their best player, showing your flaws as a player or how limited your all around game may be doesn't change the fact that you can be a franchise, I could have used similarly leveled players as curry, but i think the point would have been less obvious.

as for the knicks chemistry the only concern is Zach really and how he fits in if he gave nothing else than his mid range J and his rebounding the knicks should be significantly better because thats all they really required from frye , but there is alot more to Randolph's game than that, Curry has his role defined , both marbury and crawford obviously for the good of their team took from their game for the good of the team last season and the betterment of Curry's game(Crawford in particular showed how much the gameplan was limiting his game in the 5 and half quarters curry missed due to injury in which he scored around 80 points in that time)...and i think we all know the only reason Curry hasn't yet been to the playoffs is because he had a heart issue a few years back .


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Isnt he still good?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> i'm not saying they are the same level of player .
> 
> all i am saying is just because a franchise decides to build around you doesn't automatically make them successful or make that player any less of a franchise player if they dont win, I used garnett because he is obviously a franchise player but his teams haven't been very successful lately.
> 
> i used nash because he has never been a good defender but no disputes he is the suns franchise player or at the very least their best player, showing your flaws as a player or how limited your all around game may be doesn't change the fact that you can be a franchise, I could have used similarly leveled players as curry, but i think the point would have been less obvious.


so in essence, if an organization decides to "build around" a player, he should therefore be deemed a "franchise" player? i can't agree with that either. 

garnett took some less than talented teams to the playoffs, again something curry's never done. i'd grant you that even IF i considered curry a franchise player, outside of an occasional double team strategy against curry, i don't know that any nba team game plans or strategizes how to neutralize curry in defeating the knicks. that factor is what makes a franchise player what or who he is. curry has not reached that plateau (nor will he), imo.

lastly, i'm no curry basher, however, outside of a role player who can score a bit (yes, i wrote "a bit") on the low block, i haven't seen much evidence of curry's impact helping his current team win. i don't think he's ever going to do more than "bit" parts for a *winning* team. his role on the bulls, as has been stated ad nauseum, was tailor made for his limitations. now, however, those limitations are consistently exposed and the knicks are groping for ways to complement his strongest attribute.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> so in essence, if an organization decides to "build around" a player, he should therefore be deemed a "franchise" player?


Only an idiot would build around a player who isn't.

Wasn't that why we traded Brand?


The franchise player is the guy who neutralizes the effect of the other teams best player 8 out of every 10 games.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

are you calling isiah and jerry idiots?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> so in essence, if an organization decides to "build around" a player, he should therefore be deemed a "franchise" player? i can't agree with that either. .


well teams decide to build around you because you are good , no team is going to build around lets say malik allen or jarron collins.



> garnett took some less than talented teams to the playoffs, again something curry's never done. i'd grant you that even IF i considered curry a franchise player, outside of an occasional double team strategy against curry, i don't know that any nba team game plans or strategizes how to neutralize curry in defeating the knicks. that factor is what makes a franchise player what or who he is. curry has not reached that plateau (nor will he), imo.


i think garnetts playoff teams have had talent , he has always taken teams that had at the very least a 2nd tier star some1 like wally Z(at the time), brandon, jr rider, billups, marbury, gugliotta, sprewell or cassell...he usualy has had more than 1 at his disposal.

you see he cant do it with ricky davis as his #2 . he has always needed some1 who can make and take shots in the 4th quarter to cover his weaknesses...because no player is perfect, and that is garnett's flaw, he really isn't a 4th quarter go to scorer ...never has been.




> lastly, i'm no curry basher, however, outside of a role player who can score a bit (yes, i wrote "a bit") on the low block, i haven't seen much evidence of curry's impact helping his current team win. i don't think he's ever going to do more than "bit" parts for a *winning* team. his role on the bulls, as has been stated ad nauseum, was tailor made for his limitations. now, however, those limitations are consistently exposed and the knicks are groping for ways to complement his strongest attribute


all players need a team that makes up for what they lack because no player can do it all, garnett isn't going to break down a defense off the dribble or seal a man off and post him 3 ft. from the basket , he basically takes the same shots all game and teams have been sucessful for quite some time at making him give up the ball in the 4th quarter and make some1 else beat them , which is why his t'wolves weren't winning the last couple of years because he was giving the ball up to people who couldn't win the game with him. 

Curry has his flaws for sure , but people around here make way to much of them, overemphasizing its importance, i have a post on this thread on his rebounding to illustrate that case.

also,

i got news for you other, teams have curry as their number 1 priority to slow or stop to beat the knicks , they double at different times(some times even before he gets the ball) , use different line ups come from different places and use different people all to slow and stop curry from dec. 1st on of last season he avg. about 21 points a game on nearly 60% from the field , if you think a team sees that and just lets it happen with no regard to stopping it , you must not have alot of respect for head coaches around the league, its a chess game they try something to slow him thomas devises plays to negate that they adjust and so on and so on...its no different than teams trying to find ways to slow gordon , no one wants to let a team's 1st and best weapon to beat you and its the same for any team around the league , its a testament to that player and the coaching staff when they do it anyway.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> are you calling isiah and jerry idiots?


Isaiah yes.

Jerry Sloan, we'll see.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Franchise player seems like a real stretch to me


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i got news for you other, teams have curry as their number 1 priority to slow or stop to beat the knicks , they double at different times(some times even before he gets the ball) , use different line ups come from different places and use different people all to slow and stop curry from dec. 1st on of last season he avg. about 21 points a game on nearly 60% from the field , if you think a team sees that and just lets it happen with no regard to stopping it , you must not have alot of respect for head coaches around the league, its a chess game they try something to slow him thomas devises plays to negate that they adjust and so on and so on...its no different than teams trying to find ways to slow gordon , *no one wants to let a team's 1st and best weapon to beat you and its the same for any team around the league*, its a testament to that player and the coaching staff when they do it anyway.


Fortunately for the rest of the league, the "1st and best weapon" the Knick had wasn't beating too many people!


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Jerry Sloan, we'll see.



i meant jerry *krause*.......


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Fortunately for the rest of the league, the "1st and best weapon" the Knick had wasn't beating too many people!


no it wasn't , but they were able to win an inordinate amount of close games, without that injury bug that hit them in march i feel they would have coasted into the playoffs.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Eddy Curry franchise player?

As I've already asked in this thread could somebody name a championship team whose center was a black hole on offense and horrible on defense. (I mean a championship is the goal, right?)


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Snake said:


> Eddy Curry franchise player?
> 
> As I've already asked in this thread could somebody name a championship team whose center was a black hole on offense and horrible on defense. (I mean a championship is the goal, right?)


Shaq and the lakers?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Shaq and the lakers?


Shaq is by no means a black hole. His defense isn't horrible either.

Good guess, though, FWIW.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Shaq and the lakers?


Shaq's career averages:
2.8 apg 0.6 spg 2.5 bpg

Curry's career stats:
0.6 apg 0.3 spg 0.8 bpg

Shaq's career per 40 stats:
3.0 apg 0.7 spg 2.7 bpg

Curry's careers per 40 stats
0.9 apg 0.5 spg 1.2 bpg

Shaq may have looked pathetic defensively in last year playoffs (almost Curryesque )but in his prime he was quite capable of anchoring a defense. Is it even a question who the better passer is.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> no it wasn't , but they were able to win an inordinate amount of close games, without that injury bug that hit them in march i feel they would have coasted into the playoffs.


Injury bug = David Lee, the Knicks best player (by far). Not Curry, but Lee.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Snake said:


> Eddy Curry franchise player?
> 
> As I've already asked in this thread could somebody name a championship team whose center was a black hole on offense and horrible on defense. (I mean a championship is the goal, right?)


James Edwards.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> James Edwards.


Edwards backed up Laimbeer. Malone played excellent defense in his Title season. And of course, Moses rebounded. On both ends of the court. And Moses was an excellent FT shooter.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mateo said:


> Injury bug = David Lee, the Knicks best player (by far). Not Curry, but Lee.


I really didn't think they missed david Lee much , they had renaldo balkman to fill in and he did very well...the knicks actually became a better rebounding team while Lee was out.

Crawford and richardson were really missed though , they provided scoring and outside shooting, the players who replaced their minutes couldn't shoot at all and weren't nearly the scorers they were(mardy collins and jared jeffries) and with that their season ended , because if the knicks cant score they cant win....Crawford especially seemed to be a catalyst for them from when he was installed as a starter til injuries took his season they actually had a winning record (17-15)


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Mr.Montross said:


> Edwards backed up Laimbeer. Malone played excellent defense in his Title season. And of course, Moses rebounded. On both ends of the court. And Moses was an excellent FT shooter.


James Edwards looked like a Bill Russell clone compared to Curry. Those Pistons championship teams may have been the only ones who could successfully hide Curry's ineptitiude on D. Then again, if guys like Laimbeer, Rodman, and Mahorn got a hold of Curry they might have lit a fire under him or killed him. I hated all those Piston thugs, but there is no way they would tolerate the baby soft effort of Curry on D. Daly would likely have glued him to the bench. 

Thomas was part of that, yet he continues to get as many overpaid scoring, no intangible, no IQ, no defense players he can. And he got an extension! The trio of Marbury, Curry, and Randolph borders on the absurd. How many brain cells between those 3? Oh wait. They can score. NY is a comical cast of cartoon characters. That owner has destroyed them. Next thing you know, he will hire Krause in as a consultant for Isiah.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> Franchise player seems like a real stretch to me



lol i'm sorry but wtf is that in your signature? Looks like a regurgitated slim jim. Gross.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mr.Montross said:


> Edwards backed up Laimbeer. Malone played excellent defense in his Title season. And of course, Moses rebounded. On both ends of the court. And Moses was an excellent FT shooter.


actually edwards started 70 games the 2nd title season , he backed up mahorn in the 1st.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> actually edwards started 70 games the 2nd title season , he backed up mahorn in the 1st.


Okay. Was Edwards better than Curry at anything in particular?

Honest question.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> actually edwards started 70 games the 2nd title season , he backed up mahorn in the 1st.


Edwards played pretty big minutes on those Piston teams. I'd probably take Eddy Curry over James Edwards in his mid-30's, but it's not a total slam dunk. FWIW, Edwards' and Curry's numbers from ages 22, 23 and 24 are incredibly similar.

Curry is a strange player to try and put into context historically. On the one hand, he's a young center who certainly ranks in the game's top 10 at his position, maybe even top 5. On the other hand, a big reason for that is that there simply aren't very many good centers in the game today. When you try and find a good historical comp for Curry you end up with guys like Kevin Duckworth and James Edwards, who were good players, but nothing you'd ever consider building a franchise around. 

Tim Wakefield is the best knuckle-baller in the majors right now, but he's not Charlie Hough. Ovie Mughelli made the Pro Bowl at fullback last year, largely because the position is way less important than it used to be. Don't get me wrong, Curry is a good player. I'm just not sure that being ranked amongst the game's best "true centers" means a whole hell of a lot at this point...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mr.Montross said:


> Okay. Was Edwards better than Curry at anything in particular?
> 
> Honest question.


he was a better team defender and in his younger years a better rebounder , but that was about it.

Edwards name is in the thread because some1 asked if there was a championship center who was a black hole on offense and horrible on defense.

but curry's game is far better than edwards especially in the years the pistons won titles.

edwards as an offensive force is far below curry , he never avg. more than 16.7 points or shot above 54.2 % from the field , so even at his best he isn't as good or even really all that close to the low post scorer eddy is who put in 19.5 at a .576 clip last season...and it worth noting when Edwards played defense was not the priority it is today until his piston years because they started it.


----------



## Mr.Montross (Sep 24, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> he was a better team defender and in his younger years a better rebounder , but that was about it.
> 
> Edwards name is in the thread because some1 asked if there was a championship center who was a black hole on offense and horrible on defense.
> 
> ...


I think we all realize that the Pistons' Title teams game is no longer allowed in the NBA, so there is a differnce when comparing Edwards and Curry.

And please understand, I am NO FAN OF EDDY CURRY.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Da Grinch said:


> James Edwards.


A decent comparison. Though Curry is still the bigger black hole (Edwards had 2.1 assists per 40 for his career compared to Curry's 0.9)


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Black hole or not, he's one damn good scorer


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

When bored, dredge up an old Eddie Curry thread -- even a really bad one like this.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Black hole or not, he's one damn good scorer


He's really not. He gets ALOT of touches and scores a low amount of hoops for all the turnovers. The Knicks force feed the guy to justify his huge salary. We'll see how dominant he is this year when they force feed Randolph instead. I predict 12 ppg this year for him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

McBulls said:


> When bored, dredge up an old Eddie Curry thread -- even a really bad one like this.



Indeed. 

Trust me though, it won't get out of hand.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Curry has a tear in his shoulder. Doesn't say how much time he'll miss. But I don't like the chances of Eddy playing well through injuries.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3054697


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Curry has a tear in his shoulder. Doesn't say how much time he'll miss. But I don't like the chances of Eddy playing well through injuries.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3054697


supposedly he'll only be out a couple of weeks.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Da Grinch said:


> supposedly he'll only be out a couple of weeks.


I bet he'll sulk on the couch every night with a tub of ice cream


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> I bet he'll sulk on the couch every night with a tub of ice cream


have you seen eddy this month? he lost about 20 pounds in the offseason, he weighs about 280 now , he's looking quite thin.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Eddy News:



> barring any setbacks, it seems very likely that Curry will be back for the Knicks’ final three preseason games, starting with an Oct. 22 home game against Boston. By then, Curry will have had 16 days to recover.
> 
> One presumes that Thomas breathed a sigh of relief yesterday, but the team was off and no one was available for comment.


Thats the NYTimes. But the daily news says:



> A recognized trait among players with labral tears is that they eventually need surgery to repair the damage. The Lakers' Lamar Odom had surgery in May for a similar injury while Houston center Yao Ming continues to play with a shoulder tear.
> 
> Perhaps the most notable recent shoulder surgery patient is Miami's Dwyane Wade, who had a procedure over the summer and will not be available for the start of the regular season. Wade sustained a labral tear when he dislocated his shoulder; Curry's labral tear (cartilage) was caused by a subluxation.
> 
> Dr. Timothy Reish, a renowned shoulder specialist working in Manhattan, said that a subluxation could cause as much damage to the labrum as a dislocation. Rehabilitation can strengthen the shoulder area, but Curry, much like Yao, runs the risk of aggravating the injury because of daily activity on the basketball court. Any time Curry reaches for a rebound and locks arms with an opposing player, he could damage his shoulder even more. If surgery is required, he would be sidelined at least three months.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, so it's exactly the sort of injury that gets worse if you play on it. Sounds to me like it'd be ridiculously foolish to push Curry to play. I expect the Knicks to do it and have him gone for months.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Sooner than expected, Curry, rehabbing from a torn labrum in his right shoulder, was cleared yesterday morning to go full tilt in today's practice. But the Knicks franchise center will have to wear a cumbersome shoulder brace the next two weeks.
> 
> "Put it in bold print: I'm back," a giddy Curry said.


nypost.com


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*I'M BACK!*


....it's almost like he never left.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Wynn said:


> *I'M BACK!*
> 
> 
> ....it's almost like he never left.


um, welcome back? :cheers:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> um, welcome back? :cheers:


My post may make more sense in the context of the previous post. Thanks for the toast, though!


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Wynn said:


> I'M BACK!
> 
> 
> ....it's almost like he never left.





> My post may make more sense in the context of the previous post. Thanks for the toast, though!


EDIT: Add this nugget from the Tyrus/prejudice thread:


> I think the more accurate term would be "postjudiced", then.


I love Wynn.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

In reply to the thread question:



> Is it just me, or was Eddy Curry actually good?


It is just you. Curry sucked when he was a Bull. IMO he still sucks. I just don't think much of basketball players who don't play defense, no matter how many points they score. If I were coach they would all get Tim Thomas treatment.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Let me see. What did Skiles say when a reported asked him what EC could do to be a better rebounder? He said "put his hands up into the air". Nuff said. My guess is his muscle tear keeps him out of the first month of the season and he gains like 20 pounds and his not in playing shape until after the first of the year.

david


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

McBulls said:


> In reply to the thread question:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just you. Curry sucked when he was a Bull. IMO he still sucks. I just don't think much of basketball players who don't play defense, no matter how many points they score. If I were coach they would all get Tim Thomas treatment.


and i'd say he's slightly underrated on defense. 

just check these out and you'll understand.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0C888cJux9E"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0C888cJux9E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zb5flIeD05U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zb5flIeD05U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Eddy was more athletic (at least his first year or two) than he was given credit for, I think. I remember a random play from probably Tyson and Eddy's second year... they were chasing down a fast break and Tyson flew through the air and nearly blocked a shot, but Eddy was running down the lane right behind him and jumped and rejected it hard on the full run, high in the air, higher than he needed to be, because he rejected it from just above his head. It probably looked better than it was because Tyson altered the shot, but he just ate it up. It was a dominating play by two young athletic bigs; I thought we might have something there.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

giusd said:


> Let me see. What did Skiles say when a reported asked him what EC could do to be a better rebounder? He said "put his hands up into the air". Nuff said.


Actually, Skiles's reaction was 100 times funnier than that. He said, "Jump." And it's still funny.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

liekomgj4ck said:


> and i'd say he's slightly underrated on defense.
> 
> just check these out and you'll understand.


And then you wake up from your dream and the reality hits you that Curry really is a brutal defender.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kEY2gP1UGIA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kEY2gP1UGIA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Today:



> Thomas rarely called out his team publicly for those deficiencies last season. But he now raises the issue almost daily, citing his basketball roots with Indiana University and the Detroit Pistons — teams that were renowned for defense.
> 
> Rather than rely on center Eddy Curry (a below-average shot blocker) to erase defensive mistakes, Thomas wants his perimeter players to make the stops.
> 
> ...


If the Knicks actually play tough perimeter defense (it's my opinion that it takes until the second season to really 'take root') they'll be a tough out a lot of nights. Lots of scorers, lots of athleticism. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/sports/basketball/16knicks.html?ref=sports


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

GB said:


> Today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a huge IF. Defense isn't taught overnight. It's all about passion and desire. Balkman and Lee are really the only good defenders they have. Marbury, Crawford, Fred Jones, Robinson, Richardson are all brutal defenders. I don't expect that to change much from last year. Throw in James, Randolph, Curry, Morris and I expect worse than the 100.3 ppg and 20th best in the league they achieved last season.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Really.

It was just a pre-season game, but they lost by 40 last night. As a team they shot 25.9% while Bostons trio was 19-31.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GB said:


> Bostons trio was 19-31.


OT: But didn't several posters think it would take a year plus for Boston to play well together. I think they are on a bit quicker timetable.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I think they are on a bit quicker timetable.



Seen their ages? They have to be.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> OT: But didn't several posters think it would take a year plus for Boston to play well together. I think they are on a bit quicker timetable.


Is this comment based on the fact that they have won three pre-season games? Two of those were against the Knick and the Timberwolf -- two of the league's worst teams. The third was against the Raptor, where each of the big three played over thirty minutes and they still only won by 4 points. Lastly, it's PRE-SEASON!!! Let's see what they do against competition that's playing their regular season rotations.

...and to keep this thread Mr. Ed related, 7 points on 2-6 shooting with 2rbs, 0ast, 0stl, 0blk in 16 minutes. *He's Back!* At least Jamal showed up with 0-8 in 27 minutes...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Is the Knick still one of the leagues worst teams Wynn?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

GB said:


> Is the Knick still one of the leagues worst teams Wynn?


Absolutely! Last season was a fluke that they played as well as they did. I anticipate another plummet this season as Z-Bo takes away minutes from David Lee and as Crawdaddy, Starbury, Mr. Ed, Z-Bo and company continue to play on only one side of the court.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Absolutely! Last season was a fluke that they played as well as they did. I anticipate another plummet this season as Z-Bo takes away minutes from David Lee and as Crawdaddy, Starbury, Mr. Ed, Z-Bo and company continue to play on only one side of the court.



Continuing the stupidity after the game Q gave up this gem:



> "I played against Kevin Garnett for eight years. I played against Ray Allen for eight years. I played against Paul Pierce for eight years. I never cared about them then I don’t care about them now.”
> --
> Right now, I’m just looking at this as a throw-away game. Throw it away and get it out of our system . . . We’ll see them again.”
> --
> "I think they’re going to have their hands full with us.”


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

> "I played against Kevin Garnett for eight years. I played against Ray Allen for eight years. I played against Paul Pierce for eight years. I never cared about them then I don’t care about them now.”
> --
> Right now, I’m just looking at this as a throw-away game. Throw it away and get it out of our system . . . We’ll see them again.”
> --
> "I think they’re going to have their hands full with us.”


I'm with you Q. Kick their butts next time you see them. The Bulls don't have a NY pick until 2009, so best of luck beating everyone but the Bulls. Sorry you got caught up in the this mess in NY. Try talking you teammates into playing a little defense from time to time. You never know, they might find it to be fun.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

They lost again last night. 

Isaiah has got to be feeling the pressure.

Lets say you're hired as GM to clean up his mess. What are your top 3 objectives?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I don't see Isiah's defensive philosophy working too well. But I'm guessing he's using it because he doesn't have any other choice. 

The fact of the matter is, good offense beats good defense, which is why big guys are so important to ward off penetration. Trying to create a system that completely nullifies that aspect of the game because your big guys are so terrible at it seems destined to fail, especially given the backcourt personnel......


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Also, I think time will show that the way we used E-city in 04-05 probably hits the "sweet spot" for how he should be used. As an offensive finisher, a defensive cog, and with a coaching staff that is hell bent on making sure he stays in shape.

His abilities are too unique to keep him off the floor, but his weakness are too severe to play him upwards of 35 minutes a game. He's capable of scoring over 20 points, but doing so has very high opportunity costs, since his non-scoring offensive abilities are so poor. Likewise, if you're intent on making him a focal point of the team, you're forced into a situation like IT is right now on defense. That is, you have to have a defensive philosophy where you just can't get beat, which doesn't seem very sustainable, especially in the playoffs.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I don't see Isiah's defensive philosophy working too well. But I'm guessing he's using it because he doesn't have any other choice.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, good offense beats good defense, which is why big guys are so important to ward off penetration. Trying to create a system that completely nullifies that aspect of the game because your big guys are so terrible at it seems destined to fail, especially given the backcourt personnel......


His scorers can't defend, and his defenders can't score.

And this is going to get him in trouble with his owner/boss:



> Allan Houston's storybook comeback appears headed for an unhappy and possibly ugly ending.
> 
> Isiah Thomas decided not to have Houston dress for last night's 110-94 exhibition loss to the Nets at the Meadowlands and later admitted that Houston's chances of making the final roster were slim.
> 
> ...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

More:



> Blame Isiah for extending such a long-term, lucrative deal on a player whose had weight issues and a potential career-ending knee surgery in 1999.
> -
> The screws in James' knee he received during major reconstructive surgery in 1999 is being rejected by his body, causing inflammation, swelling and pain. He needs surgery to remove it, but is trying to hold off till summer.
> --
> ...


http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/knicks/archives/2007/10/jeromes_sad_sag.html


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Eddy Curry is roughly the size of a minivan, with high-tops instead of tires. And when you're that big, no one wants to hear you complain about being picked on.
> 
> But Curry believes enough is enough. Like Shaquille O'Neal before him, the Knicks' center continues to lash out at what he feels is a double standard in the NBA: the bigger you are, the more you get hit and hit hard.
> 
> "I just feel like it's getting old," he said. "I'm not going to let nobody disrespect me out there."





> Curry hinted that if the league can't police any hand-to-hand combat in the post, then he will have no choice but to protect himself.


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...knicks_curry_annoyed_at_continued_physic.html


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

GB said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...knicks_curry_annoyed_at_continued_physic.html


More groin punches! Watch out, Brendan Haywood!


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

jbulls said:


> More groin punches! Watch out, Brendan Haywood!


It's still so weird that the one sighting of Eddy Curry intensity happened in a preseason game, and its medium was a punch delivered to the groin of an opponent. An opponent already on the ground, even.



EDIT: of course, it sounds like everyone in the league hates Haywood, so i guess that explain it. dude must be so hateable.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Isiah sucks.



> This week, in a smaller way, we'll see the Knicks again waste an asset for no good reason. Here's the situation: Even with Allan Houston's comeback being aborted, the Knicks still head into Friday's roster cut-down day with two players too many. The likely result is that second-round draft choice Demetris Nichols will be shown the door.
> 
> This is the same Demetris Nichols that the Knicks chose 53rd overall on draft day, on a pick they acquired when they gave up a 2009 second-draft choice. So it's a little bizarre to be seeing New York dismiss him so quickly. That's especially true given his preseason results. Though he only played 13 minutes, he scored nine points in that time against just one turnover. He also had a strong summer league — so it's not like he's done something horrible to earn his ticket out of town.
> 
> ...


http://www.nysun.com/article/65123


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Crawford yesterday made the boldest prediction of any Knick all preseason, saying they should make the playoffs, injuries or not, and be a factor for the Eastern title. Naturally, Crawford has never made the playoffs in his career - the player with the longest drought.
> 
> “It's about time we turned the corner,'' Crawford said. “We're as deep as any team. It's not like injuries should hold us back. There's no excuse this year. Making the playoffs, we won't be happy with. We honestly feel like we're as good as any team in the East.''
> 
> ...


http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312007/sports/knicks/isiah_expects_playoffs.htm


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I just noticed something interesting that I've seen in other games this season:

When he actually plays next to Randolph, Curry often rebounds at a greater clip than he does when he plays a game W/O Randolph in it.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Curry was good. IMO it was stupid of the Bulls to trade him in the first place. You'd be a lot farther along on the path to a title, you'd have a very good scoring center, and you wouldn't (likely) have signed Ben Wallace, who if i interpret the board correctly isn't doing very well.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

And I just noticed that those 10 rebounds were in only 24 minutes of playing time. I wonder if the lack of PT was an injury, a quick hook, or something else.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I see Curry's value on the board is improving. :lol:


----------



## ETBulls23 (Nov 16, 2007)

*Better question, what is a team with Eddy Curry?*

In 05, Eddy Curry couldn't rebound or defend, yet the Bulls did so rather well. In 05 here were the Bulls defensive rankings:

FG% 2nd
turnovers forced 9th
rebounding 7th

In 06?

FG% 3rd
turnovers forced 12th
rebounding 5th

As you can see, Eddy Curry can be part of a team that wins, rebounds well and defends well. 

Does anything else matter? If Curry sucks at rebounding, but his presence allows your _team_ to rebound well, who cares? If he's bad on defense, who cares if your team is good defensively?

*Secondly, why is it that people say that there are so few good centers like that is a bad thing?* 

So let me get this straight; when there are very few players who are competent at the dominant position in the NBA, that means you want a center LESS than you would if there were a lot of good players? Fact is, Eddy Curry is much more valuable now than he would have been in 1990, when there were fewer teams and yet you had Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, M. Malone, Parrish and Daugherty in the league. There aren't four centers in today's expansion-laden league that could hang in that group. And if there are four, Eddy Curry isn't one of them.

Eddy Curry is what he is. If you have a high number of good players, you need the floor spaced, and you have a lot of gritty players like Nocioni, Duhon, Antonio Davis, Hinrich and Chandler, Eddy Curry is a nice wild card that can be part of a championship picture on a team loaded with defense, rebounding and former lotto picks. No, Eddy Curry is not going to pair with a star and ten role players and win a ring. You probably need four or five players with star ability to get it done. He's not a franchise player, but guess what? The current Bulls have one potential franchise player on anything close to a championship team; Tyrus Thomas. And for him, we're probably talking 2010 at the earliest. When you don't have Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan or Yao Ming, and you also don't have Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Dwyane Wade or Kevin Garnett, Curry can help you gimmick your way to contention under the previous circumstances. 

With Curry you need the wing approach. He has to be a wing, not the body. You'd want to have the other wing be a defensive rebounding maching. Someone like, say, Tyson Chandler. And then in the middle, holding it together, you'd want a player who can get physical, play a little offense if he's open and also do the dirty work. Someone like Antonio Davis (players like Davis aren't hard to find if you have about 5 million to spend). When you don't have a top center who is an all-around player, this is a great strategy. Much better than building around the power forward position. Ironically, because there are so many good PFs, when you have one, he will have less positive effect on the game, because odds are he will be matched up with a more quality player. 

*I love when people say that it doesn't matter if Curry draws a double-team, because he can't pass out of it.*

The NBA is literally a game of inches. If you think Curry didn't draw players closer to him when he didn't even have the ball, you're kidding yourself. I couldn't even count how many times Nocioni pulled a hard fake on a pass to Curry, drew a player halfway between Hinrich and Curry on help, then just passed over to Hinrich for a wide open shot. If you don't think Curry spaced the floor, you're in denial. You basically don't like him because he was drafted by a fat man, and if an obese man can be the GM of the Bulls, then why can't you? 

*If you think that Curry isn't better than Ben Wallace, you're so far in denial that you make Norman Dale look like Jamal Crawford.*

Who would you rather have? Ben Wallace or Eddy Curry? If you say Ben Wallace, and you can argue without a babysitter, go to the Bulls board on hoopshype and we'll have a lot of fun. Ben Wallace for 15 million when you could have Curry and 6 million to spend? That's the funny thing. Wallace is an incomplete player too. He can't play offense. And while defense may be morally admirable, offense is a big part of the game too. 

We could have had:

C Curry, Chandler
PF , Nocioni
SF Deng, Nocioni
SG , Gordon
PG Hinrich, Duhon

Do you know how easy it is to find PFs when you already have centers? Do you know how many teams would beg for the "we just need a PF and a big SG" problem? 

We could have had that. I don't even blame Paxson. We have an owner who thinks he's in Memphis, who is happy to make Jordan era profits when his team wins 17 games, and then who wants to get rid of potentially high contracts for nothing (dictionary defintion of nothing = when you trade Tyson Chandler for a 1-year rental on PJ Brown). 

Eddy Curry is a good player. He's not as complete as Luol Deng, but then, Luol Deng can barely drive around PFs. He's not as complete as Ben Gordon. Oh wait, yes he is. But then, Gordon wasn't drafted by a fat man. He's not as complete as Ben Wallace. Oh wait, yes he is. For every problem with Curry's defense and rebounding, I can find you one with Wallace's offense. And no detriment Curry ever cost the Bulls was as bad as, Kenny Smith, "the opponent literally can play 5-on-4 defense against the Bulls." 

The Bulls already had Curry and Chandler. We're now in year three of the Curry trade, waiting for the things we traded him for to be as good as he and Chandler (when you give Chandler away for free, your total plan sucks). 

Remember the trade:

Eddy Curry + the number of years it takes the return assets to play like Curry already was in 05 > Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah and Fat Boy


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

had to bump this :biggrin:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ETBulls23 said:


> Eddy Curry + the number of years it takes the return assets to play like Curry already was in 05 > Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah and Fat Boy


ATTN: We have found a scenario in which Eddy Curry is apparently not "Fat Boy"



Also, I love how it's cardinal sin that Hinrich says "whatever" in an interview, but for $9 million yearly, Eddy Curry cant get into shape. And that's a-OK.

Even when we know he has done it before, when it was contract time. Sad, really, that he doesnt care about all this stuff.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

in other news, hoopshype the new york papers are reporting "curry and others want out of new york".....maybe they can wrangle a #2 pick from somebody?

looks like the #2 scoring center in the league isn't cutting it in new york. i'm not surprised, but i bet some are. fat, out of shape centers don't have long nba careers. a career loser who didn't know how good he had it......too bad paxson traded him; NOT......:lol:


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i read today that it's coming close to benched-time for the Difference Maker.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

AND, inexplicably the new york faithful can't see the value of his PER and want him traded!!!! WTF?

maybe his next coach will get the isaiah thomas out of him.....or not.:chee:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Curry, who last season at this time was worthy of All-Star promotion, has reached the point that his offense no longer is enough to compensate for his defensive liabilities.
> --
> as Thomas has learned this season, the young man with all that intriguing size and athleticism whom he gave up consecutive lottery picks to acquire has the intensity of a couch potato.
> 
> ...


http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/ny-spknix145500382dec14,0,2251312.story


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

So, are the Knicks making the right call in focusing less on Curry?

The Knicks are inept, right? Is this decision, since it can be spun as a negative against Curry, considered the right move, or are the Knicks still idiots?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I think it transcends a soundbite, er, simple answer. That squad appears to be rotten to the core. But Zeke says there is hope, so lets give 'em to the break to see.

Other interesting stuff:



> Crawford reminds me of John Starks, a career 41 percent shooter, 34 percent from 3pt, who was incredibly streaky and could take over games - in a good way and a bad way.
> But when he was with the Knicks, he was not the first option or the second option on offense.
> And Starks played defense.


Never thought of it that way, but I think it's apt if you allow for the wide divergence in personality and heart.

Something else a Knicks fan wrote:



> In the NY Post, Curry says of himself:
> “I feel good on defense, but ultimately it’s the coach’s decision. I feel comfortable, but maybe [Thomas] sees something different over there. He’s the coach and I’ve got 100 percent confidence in what he’s doing.”
> 
> On what planet is it possible for Curry to feel good on defense? He’s had two blocks since December 2, or 131 minutes of basketball. He’s had one steal since NOVEMBER 14, or 14 games.
> He’s had one double digit rebounding game THIS YEAR, and averaging only 3.4 defensive rebounds per game.


Newspaper:



> How depressing have the Knicks become? The other night a player told me Curry was moaning on the bench, "Get me out of here. Please get me out of here."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/12142007/sports/knicks/time_to_fire_isiah_380074.htm?page=2

Have I jinxed the team? Will Eddy go for 40 tonight in a blowout?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

> On what planet is it possible for Curry to feel good on defense? He’s had two blocks since December 2, or 131 minutes of basketball. He’s had one steal since NOVEMBER 14, or 14 games.
> He’s had one double digit rebounding game THIS YEAR, and averaging only 3.4 defensive rebounds per game.



That's some shocking stuff


----------



## YoYoYoWasup (Nov 14, 2004)

Y'know, not that it matters now, but in a way, teams and GMs should of seen this coming out of HS. He wasn't even a very good rebounder or shot blocker then, either.

BTW, 0 points, 3 rebounds tonight on 0-5 shooting for Curry.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Shamelessly stolen from another board, but the picture is great!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Before the game, Coach Isiah Thomas admitted for the first time that Curry might never become the defending, rebounding, dominating franchise center that he once envisioned.
> 
> “There’s certain things that he probably won’t ever be good at doing,” Thomas said. “We want to just make sure that he keeps doing the things that he knows how to do well.”
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/basketball/15knicks.html?ref=sports


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> It would take too long to count all the times Curry was benched by Bulls coach Scott Skiles for poor defense. Asked before the game to comment on Thomas' statements, Skiles refused to touch it.


http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=96201


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

step said:


> Shamelessly stolen from another board, but the picture is great!



Happened twice according to the NYTimes.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

GB said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/basketball/15knicks.html?ref=sports





> "There are certain things he probably never will be good at doing," Thomas said. "He may not ever be a great defender or great rebounder. But he's a great scorer. And we're going to use that."


that hurts and the sad part is if he has all the talent in the world to be an all-star.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> that hurts and the sad part is if he has all the talent in the world to be an all-star.


The sad part is, you see a lot more of that in today's players. They have all the talent but no heart. They play for the paycheck and the lifestyle that it brings.

That's why it's hard to find players on the level of a Magic, Larry, Michael, Duncan, Lebron, etc.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

A nice bump for K4E so he has a place to post :laugh:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I saw Eddy Curry get cut during a game last week and gravy poured out.


----------

