# Depth Chart



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

What do you think the depth chart is going to be now that we signed Jared Jeffries?

Here's mine...

PG-Marbury/Robinson/Collins
SG-Francis/Crawford/J.Rose
SF-Jeffries/Richardson/Balkman
PF-Frye/Lee/Taylor/M.Rose
C-Curry/James

IR-J.Rose/Taylor/M.Rose

Here's the order of guys I see coming off the bench in the 10 man rotation...

6-Crawford
7-Richardson
8-Lee
9-Robinson
10-James

The 11th and 12th guys are...

11-Balkman
12-Collins

I just don't think that the rookies are going to play that much this season.

What do you guys think?


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

id rather see James on the Inactive list. Rose or Taylor instead of james in the roster.


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

I have faith in Jerome James. If given minutes I thik he can be a good backup. Just take a look at these.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Q34s5tbP54

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Rve97WgHuw


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Unless Jalen Rose is injured then he should be in the 10 man rotation. He could give us scoring and a little D off the bench.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

marbury/nate/collins
francis/JC/qrich
dlee/balkman/jalen
frye/jeffries/malik
curry/jjames/motaylor

but alot of switching around ...only curry and jerome james are 1 position players , its best to use their versatility to the team's advantage.


----------



## TORONTO (Jul 2, 2006)

bball2223 said:


> Unless Jalen Rose is injured then he should be in the 10 man rotation. He could give us scoring and a little D off the bench.



Knicks already have plenty of scorers. And btw Jalen Rose has NOOOO D.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

if we're not going to use/trade j.rose, or mo. taylor, we should buy them out......IMO


i'd rather see the young guys get playing time over them


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

ChosenFEW said:


> if we're not going to use/trade j.rose, or mo. taylor, we should buy them out......IMO
> 
> 
> i'd rather see the young guys get playing time over them


I gotta disagree man. I want them to let J. Rose and Mo Taylor's contracts expire. I'd rather them trade Malik Rose and QRich.

but yes, the young guys gotta get some playing time. I just don't imagine that's gonna happen for balkman and collins.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Naiively, this is what I would like to see:

1: Mardy Collins
2: Jamal Crawford
3: Jared Jeffries
4: David Lee
5: Channing Frye

With the roster that we have, and the possibility of running and gunning. This would be a nice lineup, although realistically it would probably look like this:

1: Stephon Marbury
2: Jamal Crawford
3: Jared Jeffries
4: Channing Frye
5: Eddy Curry


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

PG-Marbury/Robinson/Collins
SG-JC/Francis/J.Rose
SF-Jeffries/Richardson/Balkman
PF-Frye/Lee/Taylor/M.Rose
C-Curry/James


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> I have faith in Jerome James. If given minutes I thik he can be a good backup. Just take a look at these.


You failed to post the clips of when JJ always ask out of games after 4 mintues cause he runs out of gas. Please Jerome James = Garbage.



> Unless Jalen Rose is injured then he should be in the 10 man rotation. He could give us scoring and a little D off the bench.


A light post can play better D then Jalen.



> if we're not going to use/trade j.rose, or mo. taylor, we should buy them out......IMO


Buy them out on there last year of there contract?? No thanks let them expire.



> Naiively, this is what I would like to see:
> 
> 1: Mardy Collins
> 2: Jamal Crawford
> ...


Way to young of a lineup. Replace Mardy with steph and maybe you could try to sell that lineup. I too wish Lee and Frye could start. 



> PG-Marbury/Robinson/Collins
> SG-JC/Francis/J.Rose
> SF-Jeffries/Richardson/Balkman
> PF-Frye/Lee/Taylor/M.Rose
> C-Curry/James


I agree with this chart, excpet I would place balkman ahead of Q cause everyone knows I hope Q gets splinters in his rear end this year.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Have a three guard rotation. Give Marbury, Francis and Crawford almost all the minutes. That's 90 or so minutes between three good / very good players. Start giving Nate Robinson and Mardy Collins regular court time, and you'll be employing your talent inefficiently. It's frustrating, but the gap between even a disinterested Francis and Robinson is pretty significant.

SF is tough for you guys. Lee, Jeffries, Richardson, J. Rose, Balkman... It should be mostly Jeffries and Lee, IMO. Gives you some size and rebounding and defense, all of which you could really use. 

Btw, I never understood why the Francis trade was criticized so much by everyone. He expires along with Marbury. You weren't going to be under the cap anyway, were you? So why not add some talent, even if the overall effect isn't the sum of its parts? I guess what I'm leading on to is Jalen Rose. Is there any overpaid duo/trio around who expire within two years for whom Rose can be traded? It wouldn't hurt. We don't need to worry about the owner's money. (Or am I not understanding something here?)


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Have a three guard rotation. Give Marbury, Francis and Crawford almost all the minutes. That's 90 or so minutes between three good / very good players. Start giving Nate Robinson and Mardy Collins regular court time, and you'll be employing your talent inefficiently. It's frustrating, but the gap between even a disinterested Francis and Robinson is pretty significant.
> 
> SF is tough for you guys. Lee, Jeffries, Richardson, J. Rose, Balkman... It should be mostly Jeffries and Lee, IMO. Gives you some size and rebounding and defense, all of which you could really use.
> 
> Btw, I never understood why the Francis trade was criticized so much by everyone. He expires along with Marbury. You weren't going to be under the cap anyway, were you? So why not add some talent, even if the overall effect isn't the sum of its parts? I guess what I'm leading on to is Jalen Rose. Is there any overpaid player around who expires in two years for whom Rose can be traded? Or group of players? It wouldn't hurt. We don't need to worry about the owner's money. (Or am I not understanding something here?)


I think Balkman will not see much minutes unless it's garbage time for the 1st season, so Lee and Jefferies will be fine. As another poster stated, you can also place Lee at the PF position as well. As for the Francis trade, it was silly because we had enough guards. It was a stupid trade, why have a whole arsenal of offense when we can't play a lick of defense? This is why the Jeffries signing makes the most sense. You don't need a whole lot of 20 ppg players at each position it's overkill. As for the cap, we just added more salary in that Francis deal for what? That is also overkill it doesn't matter if Steph's deal expires at the same time alongside Francis. That's a whopping 40 million we can do without. We shouldn't be spending for the heck of it, spend the money when it makes sense not because it looks good in an NBA Live video game.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Kitty said:


> It was a stupid trade, why have a whole arsenal of offense when we can't play a lick of defense?


Why not? Not getting Francis wouldn't have improved your defense. Even though the value of a player like that is diminished when you already have a lot of offense in the backcourt, it still helps. Depth is good. Players perform better when they only have to play 30 mpg as opposed to 40. You can exploit matchups. Have multiple guys on the floor who usually draw double teams. There's no such thing as too much offense. 



> As for the cap, we just added more salary in that Francis deal for what? That is also overkill it doesn't matter if Steph's deal expires at the same time alongside Francis. That's a whopping 40 million we can do without. We shouldn't be spending for the heck of it, spend the money when it makes sense not because it looks good in an NBA Live video game.


Is there any difference to the team in being $70 million over the cap as opposed to $50 million? I mean, why should we care about Dolan's money?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Why not? Not getting Francis wouldn't have improved your defense. Even though the value of a player like that is diminished when you already have a lot of offense in the backcourt, it still helps. Depth is good. Players perform better when they only have to play 30 mpg as opposed to 40. You can exploit matchups. Have multiple guys on the floor who usually draw double teams. There's no such thing as too much offense.
> 
> 
> Is there any difference to the team in being $70 million over the cap as opposed to $50 million? I mean, why should we care about Dolan's money?


I don't care how you try to slice it, that Francis deal was mind boggling. You give up expiring contracts for a player who resembles Steph and acts like him as well. You already have Crawford so adding Steve was a waste of time. There is only 1 ball, and we all know Francis style of play and with all the talent we had at the time of that trade made sharing the ball even more complicated. Francis to me never seems happy and I really don't want that type of character around the rookies. It's bad enough Steph'e teammates isn't fond of him, so why add another player with a disgruntled attitude? 


Dolan is already complaining about the money he has already spent over the years and has not seen any playoff berths. The checkbook is close and he was quoted that he won't be looking to add huge chunks of salary and I'm not even talking about the little Jefferies deal, so we won't be seeing anymore idiotic Francis deals that comes with $50-$60 million dollar price tags. This hurts us if we want to acquire someone like KG hypothetically speaking and Dolan balks about picking up his salary because of all the stupid trades we made in the past. Trading for a guy like KG verses a guy like Francis makes more sense if you going to add more money to cap.That Francis deal wasn't worth it IMO, let guys like Crawford get the minutes and develope them.

Let's see how you change your tune if Dolan decides to be cheap like Sterling was back in the days as the owner of the Clippers. How do you know Dolan won't get fed up with all the money has spent with no results? It's bad enough some of his investments are currently in the red as we speak. I don't think MSG has made a profit in years. After a while it takes a toll, and you will have to cut back. With our luck someone will come along and offered to us in a sweet deal and we won't be able to pull the trigger because he is afraid of paying for a huge salary. So maybe we should rethink again about not caring how Dolan spends his money.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Kitty said:


> I don't care how you try to slice it, that Francis deal was mind boggling. You give up expiring contracts for a player who resembles Steph and acts like him as well. You already have Crawford so adding Steve was a waste of time. There is only 1 ball, and we all know Francis style of play and with all the talent we had at the time of that trade made sharing the ball even more complicated. Francis to me never seems happy and I really don't want that type of character around the rookies. It's bad enough Steph'e teammates isn't fond of him, so why add another player with a disgruntled attitude?


You don't want Marbury and Crawford playing a huge amount of minutes, but you do want to minimize the amount of time your lesser players are on the floor. Players don't perform as well when their minutes increase. That's why you see guys like David Lee and Chuck Hayes do so well -- they're playing 15 minutes a night, so they have loads of energy. With Francis, you can have the guard trio playing 30 minutes each, which is a pretty big advantage.

Francis does like to dominate the ball, and he isn't a great shooter. But he is a threat even when out of his element. Also, he isn't a bad locker room presence at all. He was probably upset last season (and it's understandable), but he was popular with most of his teammates in Houston. And he listens to the coach. He didn't fit into JVG's system very well, but he did what was asked of him. 

Finally, Francis can be used in a trade. Who knows what opportunities may crop up over three years? I can see him playing well alongside a clear superstar like, say, Garnett.

These benefits hardly sound overwhelming, but if there was no cost to the team, I don't see the problem.



> Let's see how you change your tune if Dolan decides to be cheap like Sterling was back in the days as the owner of the Clippers. How do you know Dolan won't get fed up with all the money has spent with no results? It's bad enough some of his investments are currently in the red as we speak. I don't think MSG has made a profit in years. After a while it takes a toll, and you will have to cut back. With our luck someone will come along and offered to us in a sweet deal and we won't be able to pull the trigger because he is afraid of paying for a huge salary. So maybe we should rethink again about not caring how Dolan spends his money.


Good point. But I doubt Dolan would be tight-fisted if someone like KG were available. That would be huge. He's not insane.


----------

