# the knicks are deep



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Top5 EASILY. Now that they are on the five game winning streak, I feel comfortable making this topic in public instead of thinking it quietly.

First off there are the starters;

Stephon Marbury
Nate Robinson
Antonio Davis
David Lee
Eddy Curry

That's a great mix of veteran guile and rookie enthusiasm. Rebounding, playmaking and a big body in the middle to clog up the lane and produce points in the paint.

Off the bench there is;
Jamal Crawford
Maurice Taylor
Quentin Richardson
Channing Frye
Jerome James

That's 10 deep, the likes of which is not easily countered in the modern era of expansion. That's more playmaking, more rebounding, and more big bodies who can come in and wear teams down. It was only a matter of time before they found their rhythm...now I feel is an apt time as ever, to say that *the Knicks WILL make the playoffs*. Right now they are less than three games back of the 8 seed...they will be in. This aint your fathers Knicks...these guys can play. It's time for a change


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

I go back and forth on whether I'd like the Knicks to make the playoffs. While I always hope for whatever is worst for them, I can't decide whether that's a series of middling playoff births that lead them nowhere and don't allow them to get good players in the draft, or outright god awful losing seasons.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

As long as the knicks do not give up a high pick to the bulls this year and next year, I'm good.

I realize it'll take a lil while for the Knicks to reach their potential, so those are my short term wishes.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Quite a few people commented on the Knicks' depth at the start of the season. Jamal Crawford, Maurice Taylor and Quentin Richardson were all starters a year ago. 
You've left off Malik Rose and Trevor Ariza, but I guess they've fallen out of LB's favor.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

So much for Larry Brown being a bad coach.


----------



## Brolic (Aug 6, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> I go back and forth on whether I'd like the Knicks to make the playoffs. While I always hope for whatever is worst for them, I can't decide whether that's a series of middling playoff births that lead them nowhere and don't allow them to get good players in the draft, or outright god awful losing seasons.


what's worse for the Knicks? 
Me: No Playoffs for you
otherwise it's a 12-21 team screaming they're great, they can beat anyone in the league you know?


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

hmm theyre deep if AD and Penny were in their prime


----------



## cambyblockingyou (Nov 26, 2005)

that's the funkiest starting line up I've ever seen. You at least can't accuse Larry Brown of believing the hype surrounding a player's supposed "real" position.

it's difficult to keep track of just what their starting lineup is.


----------



## cambyblockingyou (Nov 26, 2005)

And for the record, that team isn't deep. It just appears to be deep because most of their best players are on the bench. That starting lineup is atrocious at best. Everyone aside from Marbury and Curry shouldn't be starters at this point and really everyone aside from Marbury should be the worst starter on their team if they have to start at all. Looks like the same mediocre team that they were before they got hot suddenly. Brown might have found a way to maximize the talent, but that's not a talented team by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Brolic (Aug 6, 2005)

how much is their payroll again over 100 million for the 6th worst record in the league? wake me up when we're talking about a .500 win team


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

..

The Knicks are pretty deep talent-wise, but most of those guys are players who don't seem to fit into team concepts very well. I call it deceiving depth.


----------



## MeirToTheWise (Nov 9, 2005)

JNice said:


> ..
> 
> The Knicks are pretty deep talent-wise, but most of those guys are players who don't seem to fit into team concepts very well. *I call it deceiving depth*.


That pretty much nailed it.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Jerome James doesn't count as depth


----------



## qross1fan (Dec 28, 2004)

Larry Brown showed that he needed some time to get this team together and to play his style of ball. Now Brown just needs to figure out one starting unit which he seemed to have done.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

sherako said:


> Top5 EASILY. Now that they are on the five game winning streak, I feel comfortable making this topic in public instead of thinking it quietly.
> 
> First off there are the starters;
> 
> ...


lol!

At first I thought Ballscientist made this thread.


And then to my surprise it was Sherako........wow.



Jerome, Q, Taylor = Scrublicious.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Q and Taylor are in no way shape or form scrubs. Taylor could easily be getting 10/5 off the bench if NY wasn't so stacked at the forward positions. Taylor was a beast at Houston.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Jerome, Q, Taylor = Scrublicious.


They have been stepping it up lately during this past few though. Q with the 4th quarter D on LeBron, Mo Taylor scoring the basketball and playing D, and Jerome James, even though he was suspended for this/that/thethird, has come back with his mind right. That's what great about it...its been different guys adding their bball flavor in the streak.


----------



## darknezx (Apr 13, 2004)

Flanders said:


> Q and Taylor are in no way shape or form scrubs. Taylor could easily be getting 10/5 off the bench if NY wasn't so stacked at the forward positions. Taylor was a beast at Houston.


 Maurice Taylor is a jump-shooting PF, who has a poor back-to-basket game. The only post up game he's got is the turnaround jump hook, which rarely goes in anyway. He couldn't even beat Juwan Howard to start.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

kamaze said:


> how much is their payroll again over 100 million for the 6th worst record in the league? wake me up when we're talking about a .500 win team


The nets just got to .500 and now you wanna talk. Funny ish right there...


----------



## matt! (Feb 21, 2005)

darknezx said:


> Maurice Taylor is a jump-shooting PF, who has a poor back-to-basket game. The only post up game he's got is the turnaround jump hook, which rarely goes in anyway. He couldn't even beat Juwan Howard to start.


Thats because Mo Taylor is the type of player who is supposed to come off the bench. He doesn't play great defense, but he can score points in bunches, so he provides a nice spark off the bench but would be incapable to start.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> I go back and forth on whether I'd like the Knicks to make the playoffs. While I always hope for whatever is worst for them, I can't decide whether that's a series of middling playoff births that lead them nowhere and don't allow them to get good players in the draft, or outright god awful losing seasons.


I'm contemplating whether or not I'd like to see your team go to the Finals again just to lose, but I just can't decide. :whoknows:


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Kitty said:


> I'm contemplating whether or not I'd like to see your team go to the Finals again just to lose, but I just can't decide. :whoknows:


And the thing is... I totally respect that!!!

To hating!!!! :cheers:


----------



## 3 Pointer (Jun 9, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Jerome James doesn't count as depth


Yes it does. His stomach is very deep.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

darknezx said:


> Maurice Taylor is a jump-shooting PF, who has a poor back-to-basket game. The only post up game he's got is the turnaround jump hook, which rarely goes in anyway. He couldn't even beat Juwan Howard to start.


poor back to the basket game? come on. Mo taylors strength is his post game.

and yes the knicks are deep. they have the highest scoring bench in the league, with jamal and channing both in the running for 6th man(how is that even possible?)


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Ummmm....*

To the people who think the KNIcks are not deep....What teams are deeper and who comes off their bench?


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

sherako said:


> This aint your fathers Knicks...


No kidding...My father's Knicks contended for championships. 

Is this a real thread? A team of Steph, Curry and eight 7th men is not deep. It's just bad. So everyone plays a lot of minutes and gets a few points here and there.

_Depth - when you have a few great players, a few really good ones and three or four contributors. For a further explanation, see "Spurs, San Antonio"_


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

*Re: Ummmm....*



alphadog said:


> To the people who think the KNIcks are not deep....What teams are deeper and who comes off their bench?


Spurs, Detroit, Miami, Pacers, Dallas, Memphis, Chicago, Milwaukee....

Should I continue?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Ummmm....*



JayRedd said:


> Spurs, Detroit, Miami, Pacers, Dallas, Memphis, Chicago, Milwaukee....
> 
> Should I continue?


Check out the points that are coming off the Knicks bench and compare that to the teams that you listed and show your results. It's always good to do research before posting erroneous statements.


----------



## KVIP112 (Oct 31, 2005)

JayRedd said:


> No kidding...My father's Knicks contended for championships.
> 
> Is this a real thread? A team of Steph, Curry and eight 7th men is not deep. It's just bad. So everyone plays a lot of minutes and gets a few points here and there.
> 
> _*Depth - when you have a few great players, a few really good ones and three or four contributors. For a further explanation, see "Spurs, San Antonio"[/*I]_


_
are you saying the spurs are bad?_


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

I'm saying the Spurs are good. And really deep. A bench of Finley, Van Exel, Horry, Rasho, Barry, Udrich, Oberto is pretty damn good. In fact, they might beat the Knicks starters. 

And to Kitty...

I live in NYC and don't need stats to tell you the Knicks are not a good team and are not the "deepest team in the league". That's an absurd statement and you can throw facts around that they have more points off their bench that so-and-so. But there's a reason for that. Larry Brown has started like 28 lineups in 33 games. So NY doesn't have defined starters and bench players and has a 12-man rotation (although LB seems to be calming that down a little bit and they've been playing better). So when you factor in that the Knicks generally have 5-6 bench guys playing significantly more minutes than the bench players on the Spurs, Heat, Pistons, etc., of course the Knick bench guys score more points. It doesn't mean these are better players that they have on the bench. It simply means that these bench players are getting more minutes (often in the 4th Quarter or crunchtime) because the team doesnt have a "best" player at any position other than PG and Center. When LB starts a guy like Q and then gives him 10 mins total for the game and then David Lee comes off the bench and plays 35 mins, I think it's pretty obvious that the bench is gonna score a lot of points. Someone has to score.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

JayRedd said:


> I'm saying the Spurs are good. And really deep. A bench of Finley, Van Exel, Horry, Rasho, Barry, Udrich, Oberto is pretty damn good. In fact, they might beat the Knicks starters.
> 
> And to Kitty...
> 
> I live in NYC and don't need stats to tell you the Knicks are not a good team and are not the "deepest team in the league". That's an absurd statement and you can throw facts around that they have more points off their bench that so-and-so. But there's a reason for that. Larry Brown has started like 28 lineups in 33 games. So NY doesn't have defined starters and bench players and has a 12-man rotation (although LB seems to be calming that down a little bit and they've been playing better). So when you factor in that the Knicks generally have 5-6 bench guys playing significantly more minutes than the bench players on the Spurs, Heat, Pistons, etc., of course the Knick bench guys score more points. It doesn't mean these are better players that they have on the bench. It simply means that these bench players are getting more minutes (often in the 4th Quarter or crunchtime) because the team doesnt have a "best" player at any position other than PG and Center. When LB starts a guy like Q and then gives him 10 mins total for the game and then David Lee comes off the bench and plays 35 mins, I think it's pretty obvious that the bench is gonna score a lot of points. Someone has to score.


The title of the thread states "The Knicks Are Deep", not the "Knicks are the Deepest Team in the League. Just wanted to clarify because it appears you think otherwise by your above post. 

Now with that little explanation you gave didn't clear anything up. That was just a good way of saying, I refuse to do the research because my previous posts would determine that I'm way off base. Nice way to dance around a bold statement without providing actual "facts" to back up your statement.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

*Re: Ummmm....*



Kitty said:


> Check out the points that are coming off the Knicks bench and compare that to the teams that you listed and show your results. It's always good to do research before posting erroneous statements.


Judging a bench off how many points they score per game is horrible, just horrible. Those other teams have better starters, so the bench doesn't NEED to score as much.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Of course we're deep. When you've got a 7 footer who dominated last year's playoffs and is still in his prime on your BENCH you know you're deep. I predicted the knicks to start off rough NOT THAT ROUGH OBVIOUSLY but once they got the hang of LB'S system WHICH THEY NOW HAVE DONE they're gonna go very far.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

knicksfan said:


> Of course we're deep. *When you've got a 7 footer who dominated last year's playoffs and is still in his prime on your BENCH you know you're deep.* I predicted the knicks to start off rough NOT THAT ROUGH OBVIOUSLY but once they got the hang of LB'S system WHICH THEY NOW HAVE DONE they're gonna go very far.


I'm assuming you are referring to Jerome James here? And if so, get ready to be disappointed on a nightly basis for the next 5 years to the tune of $30 mil. Jerome James IS the Big Deceiver.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

knicksfan said:


> Of course we're deep. *When you've got a 7 footer who dominated last year's playoffs and is still in his prime on your BENCH you know you're deep.*


You can't be talking about Jerome James. 

You guys are paying him 30 million dollars. And he's doing absolutely squat.

Jerome James does not equal more depth, it equals more lard.


----------



## mjm1 (Aug 22, 2005)

Net2 said:


> You can't be talking about Jerome James. You CAN'T.
> 
> You guys are paying him 30 million dollars. And he's doing absolutely squat.
> 
> *Jerome James does not equal more depth, it equals more lard.*


 :laugh: :clap: :yes:


----------



## Brolic (Aug 6, 2005)

NYKBaller said:


> The nets just got to .500 and now you wanna talk. Funny ish right there...


that's the spirit of a fan of a 12-21 team after "winning"...noticed you were real quiet when the Nets came to MSG 2 weeks ago I'm sure you were depressed holidays and all 5 games later and it's back to normal glad to see it. Honestly I feel bad for die hard fans that get rewarded with the worst teams in the league 
To reply to your quote look in the mirror we been over .500 you dream about it your post describes you keep the faith 

"the top feels so much better than the bottom so much better"


----------



## BIGsHOTBOY12345 (Aug 24, 2005)

nugzhomer said:


> And for the record, that team isn't deep. It just appears to be deep because most of their best players are on the bench. That starting lineup is atrocious at best. Everyone aside from Marbury and Curry shouldn't be starters at this point and really everyone aside from Marbury should be the worst starter on their team if they have to start at all. Looks like the same mediocre team that they were before they got hot suddenly. Brown might have found a way to maximize the talent, but that's not a talented team by any stretch of the imagination.



eh hemm....... yea, u might think so... No need to diss youpost, but i believe the knicks are VERY talented wise.... if they werent talented, they wouldnt be up their for offensive and defensive rebounds, we have really got our game going, and the only reason you think so, is that we have no veteran allstar players, except marbury.... Marbury, is up their in point guards, , he drives the lane, he is almost a PURE perimeter shooter, and he's up their in assists. The team has no real vet players to actually lead the team. WE are one of the youngest teams in the NBA. Our oldest player is antonio davis, and other than him, we others are all in their low 30's, in their high 20's, or in their low 20's. So to disprove your question, we are talented, and a time always needs time to know their players, better, and to blend in with each other... by the way, nugz, who is your favorite team?


----------



## BIGsHOTBOY12345 (Aug 24, 2005)

Really, people, this thread name is the knicks are deep, dont be dissing ewach others teams just because you disprove with their posts, if you are really dissing th knicks, then look at your team..... what have they done lately, JErome james i believe is a waste of money, but other than that, we are a pretty damn good team..... So please stay on topic.....


----------



## sjfinest5 (Mar 27, 2003)

the Knicks are a difficult team to figure out they certainly have the talent to make the playoffs and be a solid competetive team. But i see them having a up and down year they will have stretches where they will amaze people (like they are on right now) and then they will have stretches where they will look like a lottery team and i believe that they are one solid veteran away from eing able to be a much more consistent team a guy that has been in big situations before and can walk the team through the long season. they are an exciting bunch that can play uptempo and push the basketball but they will have a hard time becoming a competetive team that can play consitently throughout the year


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*No one has come forward ...*

to compare benches player by player. Wonder why? Come on all ye of little faith.....quit flappin your gums and do some comparison shopping. We have 2 contenders for 6th man of the year at backcourt and frontcourt. Any other teams have that? We have a solid low post offensive player who leads the league in charges drawn per minute played, plus tremendous experience in Penny and Rose (who don't even play). Come on....unzip and lets compare.


----------



## Blink4 (Jan 17, 2005)

6 in a row


----------

