# Congratulations to Marbury



## Tapseer (Jun 13, 2002)

for being named Eastern Conference player of the Week (and congratulations to me for calling it in one of these posts). For all the Marbury Haters out there, there is no reason for Marbury NOT to keep up the stat line...23 ppg, 12 apg, 3.4 rpg. Just tighten up on defense, and who knows where the Knicks end up in the playoff race. Once you're in the playoffs...anything can happen.


----------



## hatnlvr (Aug 14, 2003)

We finally have a real PG on the floor!!!


----------



## MagnusPinus (Aug 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>hatnlvr</b>!
> We finally have a real PG on the floor!!!


and in these last games is the best Pg in the league.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Marbury > Kidd

he will show it too by taking the knicks further then the Nets in the playoffs


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Hopefully tonight he'll give Francis a lesson in leadership instead of getting caught up in one-up-manship. I'm looking for Francis to score more points but Marbury to get the win.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Marbury always outplay Francis. He owns that matchup.


----------



## Tapseer (Jun 13, 2002)

Right now, this Houston game is the biggest test of these 'NEW' NY Knicks. Win or lose, this game should tell us where we really are as a team. Houston is a Van Gundy team, so there will be a lot of defensive pressure. How we handle the 'D', and making open shots (which we didn't do the last game) will be key. As a matter of fact, that Houston game is what really got everyone screaming for a post player, we missed so many jumpers that game, it was ridiculous. A post player to slow things down, dump the ball into and try to get some easy points and put pressure on Houston's defense...


----------



## NYCbballFan (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm not ready to proclaim Marbury a long-term success just yet. As a fellow PSAL alum of approximately the same age, I hope he makes it, but against the Raptors, he showed some signs of what eventually got him traded from the Nets and Suns - keeping the ball too long and sacrificing team offense for his own scores. 

Marbury's such a talented scorer, the shot he takes usually is the best shot, but team offense tends to break down when his PG court-vision narrows to a 1-on-5 Iverson-esque tunnel vision.

I think Marbury's team success as a Knick will be due less to Houston and Van Horn than the play-making relief valves offered by Penny and Frank Williams when Marbury adopts a scorer's mind-set.


----------



## Tapseer (Jun 13, 2002)

I have to disagree with you NYCBALLFAN. You don't get 14 assists hogging the ball. Neither Houston or Van Horn shot the ball very well in Toronto. As a matter of fact Doleac and Thomas made more things happen for the offense than our 1 and 2 options. If I'm Marbury, how long should I wait for you to get things going? Honestly? What more or what not Marbury should do? I don't get some of the knocks on Marbury, sometimes. I guess it's a label that he has to carry for the rest of his career. Also I don't think that Marbury shoots under 40% from the field, but insists on taking all the shots anyway ala Iverson. I really don't see the comparison between the two.


----------



## BrandinKnightFan3 (Jan 21, 2004)

Marbury is the ultimate answer to the knick PG woes and good luck to him and his career in NY


----------



## DiabloEmpire (Jan 17, 2004)

Even with Marbury on the Knicks I still don't see a playoff contenders but Isiah is making the right moves in the franchise.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Even with Marbury on the Knicks I still don't see a playoff contenders but Isiah is making the right moves in the franchise.


So wait a second... you don't see the Knicks as playoff contenders... but you do think the franchise is going in the right direction...

Does this mean you've bought into the continued mediocrity scam too? Cool.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Does this mean you've bought into the continued mediocrity scam too? Cool.


As the biggest proponent of Layden, Chaney, Van Horn, Eisley, et al, could you explain what was the alternative to "continued mediocrity"? You seem to think Vujanic (who may have never wanted to play here) and Lampe are the next coming of Stockton and Malone.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Centers in the 2004 draft

(nbadraft.net projections and height in parenthasize)
Pavel Podkozline (5th pick, 7'5)
Andris Bledrins (8th pick, 6'11)
Kosta Perovic (10th pick, 7'2)
Ha Seung Jin (14th pick, 7'3)
Robert Swift (26th pick, 7'1)

In case you neglected to read my posts of late (and I know you never forget, stalker) I made a point about the Knicks never doing anything during the Marbury era because they still don't have a center. Well, they could have had one if they didn't make the Marbury trade. In addition to Vujanic, Lampe, and cap room. Sounds more like a rebuild than it does mediocrity.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Bruno Sundov 7-2
Cezary Trybanski 7-2

Height is cheap these days. There are tons of teams playing youth out there going nowhere. All players who make it to the NBA come with nice scouting reports, doesn't mean they turn out. This team was not trying to position itself to be high in draft order, and low on the list you get skinny prospects. By the time they develop, any present talent on the roster is history. And we weren't close to being under the cap for a long time. That too is a recipie for mediocrity.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> This team was not trying to position itself to be high in draft order, and low on the list you get skinny prospects.


Three of the centers are currently projected to go 8th or lower. The Knicks were 9th last year. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have gotten at least one.



> By the time they develop, any present talent on the roster is history.


Wasn't that the plan with Lampe and Vujanic? Everybody seemed willing to go along with it, until the Marbury trade.



> And we weren't close to being under the cap for a long time. That too is a recipie for mediocrity.


As opposed to now, where the Knicks are even further over the cap than they were before? Didn't they just trade about 20 million in potential cap space?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

You win Rashidi.

However bad things get with this team, in the future we will forever have the glory years under Layden to reminisce about. I just can't decide which part of his plan was my favorite: every year a losing record, never making the playoffs, the highest payroll in the league, 100 mil to Allan Houston, Glenn Rice on top of Houston and Spree, Little Utah in NYC, his savvy with the press, all those extensions to Chaney, never getting a point guard, the 11 forwards on a team of 15, those all time greats, like Shandon, Howard and Clarence...

It was all so good. I miss it already.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> However bad things get with this team, in the future we will forever have the glory years under Layden to reminisce about. I just can't decide which part of his plan was my favorite: every year a losing record, never making the playoffs, the highest payroll in the league, 100 mil to Allan Houston, Glenn Rice on top of Houston and Spree, Little Utah in NYC, his savvy with the press, all those extensions to Chaney, never getting a point guard, the 11 forwards on a team of 15, those all time greats, like Shandon, Howard and Clarence...


At least the glory years under Layden had a promising future. It's thinking like yours which leads Dolan to know that he can pull the fleece over NY's eyes by throwing sparkles in the air.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Stop with the propoganda already. My way of thinking was to start the rebuild at the Ewing trade, rather than taking on the large contract of the aged and hobbled Rice and friends. Also before signing Houston to 100m, also before signing Shandon, Howard, and Spoon. We can only imagine how young, athletic, strong, and under the cap we'd be right now. 

But your Pal, Scott, buried this team in soft players with contracts like mountains, with one of our "best" (is 23 still considered young these days?) prospects too afraid to compete in NY for playing time against backups. Dolan/Layden set this club up to lose, but to do so with character.

My way of thinking is if you're going to rebuild you do it with certainty, you get high draft picks and clear cap space. Or, if you are going to play to win, do it with a club that has the passion and integrity to compete. Either way, have a valid and consitent game plan and see it through.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Does this mean you've bought into the continued mediocrity scam too? Cool.???

Do you think its possible for one you stop being the NANNERING NABOB of NEGATIVITY????

You clearly liked the Layden/Chaney dynamic duo....

Should we have kept them??

Should we have not hired Thomas??

Should we have not traded for Starbury??

Beter yet..What should we have done???

Answer the question....You ALWAYS HIDE from this question....


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I don't play 20 questions. You seldom answer the questions I bestow upon you, and besides, I've already made it known that I don't like repeating myself when it isn't necessary.

What good are my answers to you anyway? Do you want to get inside my head or something? You're already Rashidi's greatest fan, isn't that illustrious title good enough for you?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> My way of thinking was to start the rebuild at the Ewing trade, rather than taking on the large contract of the aged and hobbled Rice and friends.


Stop with the ignorance then. It's a well known fact that Checketts was behind the Ewing deal, not Layden.

Even beloved Jeff Van Gundy himself confirmed earlier in the week that not all of Layden's moves were orchestrated by Layden. But I'd expect you to ignore that little footnote, as usual.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Stop with the ignorance then. It's a well known fact that Checketts was behind the Ewing deal, not Layden.
> 
> Even beloved Jeff Van Gundy himself confirmed earlier in the week that not all of Layden's moves were orchestrated by Layden. But I'd expect you to ignore that little footnote, as usual.


Stop again with the propoganda! I've been very reasonable in my comments about the relationship between Dolan and Layden, but it seems your personal commitment to shield Layden from any accountability must have blinded you from them. 

I've often referred to the Knicks moves as coming from "Dolan/Layden", and I've said that sometimes Layden's name is used to represent all of Knick management. And I never said Layden was solely responsible for th Knicks plight. But he does share in the responsibility - it was his job. Your repeated propoganda is that Dolan is responsible for all the Knicks bad moves and Layden all the good ones. Doesn't that seem like a bit of an incredible stretch, even to you?

Dolan owns not just the Knicks. He also owns at least as much as the Rangers, Madison Square Garden (Icecapades, Ringling Bros, concerts, etc), the MSG network, and Cablevision. Cablevison itself employs about 16,000 people (do you suppose Dolan personally hired each one?), and their gross reciepts in 2002 were in excess of $4billionUSD. I think it's a fair statement to say Mr Dolan has a lot on his plate and does not micro-manage the Knicks. He hired Mr Layden to do that. With me so far?

Ewing asked then Pres, Checketts, to be traded for his last season. As a fan who went to games, who contributed to those 433 consecutive sellouts, I understood why - fans grumbled and moaned everytime Ewing touched the ball. By that point in his career his handle, his shot, everything was worse than ever, and fans mistreated him. I felt sad for him, and if he wanted to be traded I understood him not wanting to go out in shame. If you want to fault Dolan for capitulating to generousity and sentimentality fine, you may - Van Gundy did, I didn't.

Okay, Ewing had one huge year left on his contract, and we'd have to take on another big contract in return. But how about one for a center or point guard, which we sorely needed? No, the main piece of Layden's trade was Rice. He was old-ish, injured, and worst of all... we already had a glut of Houston and Spree at the 2 guard position. Rice was a Houston clone with plantar fasciitis. And Dolan did not tell Layden to go get Rice, he told him to trade Ewing. Get the difference?

The only other trade Dolan had a hand in was Spree. I think it was a mistake to trade him, but again, I understood. Dolan wanted "character" guys, which I think was a mistake, I want good players. But I capitulate to the owners request. But to Layden's fault, in moving Spree we bring in another timid soft type player, one who isn't particularly athletic, isn't all that comfortable in the SF position, and can't play a lick of D. In spite of their statistical parity, Spree's intensity, defense, energy, and athleticism added a dimension the Knicks sorely need again. Still, it may have been Layden's best trade, but it was only a parity trade at best. That's all one can say for Layden, his best trade in his 3+ years just about broke even.

The way overpaid Houston, the overpaid Utah scrubs, the undersized power forwards, the backup point guards... there is nothing to suggest Dolan had anything to do with any of that, yet those signings are the signature of Layden's tenure.

So the relationship between Dolan and Layden is like most between owner and GM. The owner gives an overall direction, then hands things off to his trusted GM to mastermind. By all accounts Dolan's directive was to keep winning, but Layden did not. He didn't position us wel for the present or the future. If Layden were just doing Dolan's bidding he was at best irrelevant, and there'd have been no reason to fire him.

But Layden's reign was characterized by signing old, unathletic and soft players., with much too much homogeneity between them. Eisley was too similar to Ward, Rice to similar to Houston, Van Horn too similar to Houston, Spoon too similar too Harrington who was too similar to Sweetney, Lampe too similar to Doleac who was too similar to Knight, etc.

So if you liked the Knick team pre-Thomas, and you like Layden because of it, we have no argument. I 'll just say there is no accounting for taste. But if you are trying to tell me it wasn't crafted by Layden, as you have, you typically get a beef from me. Though I admit I am losing interest in it fast.


----------



## rickyricardo (Jan 24, 2004)

*Marbury is da man*

yeah Marbury my man is holding his ground. i m proud of him man. yesterday he destroyed ATL in the last minutes, i almost wanted to cry. it wa sbeautiful. long live Marbury


----------

