# Telfair or Robinson?



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

If Francis and Marbury were both gone (no more bad influence), and Portland approached about swapping Telfair for Nate, would you guys say yes?

Sebastian Telfair
PPG 9.1 
RPG 1.9 
APG 3.6 
SPG .83 
BPG .11 
FG% .382 
FT% .778 
3P% .370 
MPG 24.2 

Nate Robinson
PPG 8.5 
RPG 2.3 
APG 1.8 
SPG .60 
BPG .02 
FG% .393 
FT% .740 
3P% .383 
MPG 19.4 

I've always wanted Telfair to play for his hometown. And I promise this is the last post I make about any transaction involving Nate, until his contract is up or trade rumors start up.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

As exciting as Robinson is, I'd go with Telfair. He's got serious potential, and can be a true point guard at the elite level.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Krstic All Star said:


> As exciting as Robinson is, I'd go with Telfair. He's got serious potential, and can be a true point guard at the elite level.



ditto.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I'd rather have Telfair, but man Nate sure is a helluva lotta fun to watch. I feel sorry for you guys though, IT just doesn't seem to know what he is doing.

Don't worry, Starbury and Franchise will be gone, and that is when it will get interesting.

Good luck guys


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

If the Knicks got Telfair for Robinson I'd be the proudest Knick fan ever. I'd literally FAINT. Telfair is my favorite player in the league. Kid has the heart of Nate but he's a TRUE PG which Larry would LOVE. Kid can score but he KNOWS how to set his team up and make them better. There is NOBODY on this team that can do that and Nate is one of the best in the league YES ALREADY at doing it. Hell that's why iv been advocating trading away Frye and Steph for Telfair Pryz Miles and Randolph for a while. Or anything that involves getting Telfair in here ASAP basically.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Krstic All Star said:


> As exciting as Robinson is, I'd go with Telfair. He's got serious potential, and can be a true point guard at the elite level.


What's the NBA, there's a more elite league than the NBA? With the minutes he got in the beginning of the season, he sure didn't look to good and still doesn't. What's this about getting Telfair? We kick out his cousin and bring him in? This would be basically repeating the situation, except with less money being spent. I'd rather have Nate, after his stint of being inactive, he now looks smarter and knows what he's doing.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Trust me gotham.

Telfair is NOTHING like his cousin. I'd rathertrade Marbury somehow and get Telfair and keep Nate. That would be an amazing backcourt.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Nate would be a perfect backup to a tall, pass first PG. He's the ultimate change-of-pace backup. Telfair and Nate would be pretty short though, that could hurt.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

WTChan said:


> Nate would be a perfect backup to a tall, pass first PG. He's the ultimate change-of-pace backup. Telfair and Nate would be pretty short though, that could hurt.


Size is SO overrated as far as points are concerned. Jamal would be the backup 1 perhaps since he's tall and Q at backup SG


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

hell yeah id take bassy......dude just lacks confidence right now, so hes struggling a bit... but he can play, and he has no identity crisis, unlike Marbury.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

knicksfan said:


> Size is SO overrated as far as points are concerned. Jamal would be the backup 1 perhaps since he's tall and Q at backup SG


But do you mean Telfair with Nate at SG?


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

WTChan said:


> But do you mean Telfair with Nate at SG?


Nate will probably go down in history as the smallest SG ever.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Nate matching up against Jared Jeffries will be interesting.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

WTChan said:


> But do you mean Telfair with Nate at SG?


Nate would be the 2 while Tels would be the 1. Tels is a real PG and plays like it while Nate is an AI type player and would be a perfect fit at the 2.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Amaze yet again...*

Always wantin' the hometown boy. How many times you need to get burned? Nate is coming along nicely, he needs some time. Telfair isn't wowing anybody right now and for some people to suggest they know why (lack of confidence, etc) is dumb. He is ALSO small and not nearly as strong (and never will be), nor will he defend as well. What makes anyone think he is a "true" PG? As the season wore on, he was looking to score more...just like someone else we know. It doesn't matter what comes out of their mouth, it matters what they do on the court.....guy has done nothing consistently yet.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

knicksfan said:


> Nate would be the 2 while Tels would be the 1. Tels is a real PG and plays like it while Nate is an AI type player and would be a perfect fit at the 2.


Nate isn't the offensive player of Iverson's caliber. And Nate would get shot over by alomst every SG.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Read, sir...*

The guy never siad he was AI caliber. He said only that he was an AI TYPE of player. And, BTW, ever try shooting over a shooter guy who is very strong and in your wheelhouse? Most players need room to shoot well and Nate is strong enough and quick enough to take that away. Perhaps you missed the play where he blocked the oop to Garnett on the break? Pretty good defense....and Sebby will never be able to do that.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

5'8 players aren't shooting guards. Sure, he can contest a shot, but most of the SGs in the league are 6'5 and over. And yes, I have tried shooting over a guy whos is very strong. But I didn't have 9 inches of height difference.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*You assume...*

That Nate will be a 2. He has no future as a 2. He will be a PG. This discussion is about Nate vs. Telfair...is it not? Bogues stuck at 5'3 until his health gave out after a long and effective career. You saying that Nate can't be as productive?


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: You assume...*

OK MAYBE I will try to make my point clearer


My suggestion is on OFFENSE to use Tels as the point and Nate as the 2 guy. On DEFENSE you switch it. Go Nate at the 1 and Telfair at the 2. Both are GREAT hardnosed defenders. They are both short not only for there positions but especially for the 2 but I believe the heart they posses and the elite combination of quickness/strength both men have ESPECIALLY NATE they will be able to overcome the one size disadvantage.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Worked for Frazier and Monroe. I'd try it, can't hurt more that it's hurting now.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Come on, Chan...*

Clyde was 6'4 and a top 50 guy both ways. Pearl was 6'3 and all world offensively. Only bad knees kept him from being one of the best...ever. That was 30 years ago. Same as 6'6/6'7 now. The comparison is absurd on every level....size...ability...star quality. How many guys have to tell you guys that Nate's career is as a PG? It's not me who is saying this(although I agree), its coaches, players(current AND past), and scouts. Get with the program. Telfair will be a decent PG but never great (Marbury genes).


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

no way you put nate at the 2....ridiculous...hes not that good offensively anyways, and it would just be a liability for either bassy or nate.

id rather have a normal sized team than have this mismatch exposed every damn night


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

It'll sell tickets, if anything. And it might win more games than the current 1/2 does. Not gonna get to the playoffs like that though.


----------

