# Love u Isiah for drafting Nate "the Great"



## Chef (Nov 24, 2002)

I have been praising Nate all year long, defending he is a first rounder... I was right :biggrin: 

Also as a European I love he is playing in NY because if I ever got to watch a NBA game live, it would be at the Garden (I love the city of NY)...I will see Nate dunking on 7 footers live! :banana: 

Cheers from Spain... From now on, I will be around... :cheers:


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Oh yeah...*

Just what we need ..a 5'9 shooting guard...or is he a 5'9'pg that needs ball handling improvement. Worthy of that pick? I just don't see it. Could have added petro or Blatch or numerous others.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Oh yeah...*

I didn't follow college ball enough to know who were the good choices at each slot, but I like this kid Robinson. He's the anti-Marbury. He's upbeat, uptempo, firey, aggressive, defensive. Possibly forever a bench guy (though Bogues and Boykins are okay in my book) but one of those guys who you can throw in there and his energy and disruption changes the face of the game. Him, Ariza and JYD on the floor together could be some real havock makers.

But the sad truth is it doesn't look like we picked up many starters, let alone stars. Seems like Isiah was hitting for average. Just trying to get on base. No homeruns, but no strikeouts either. This way at least they're all tradable somewhere down the line.

It's not all that uncommon for some of the later round picks to not even make the squad come October, so if everyone is a keeper I guess it'd have to be considered a success. Just not the smashing success many have come to expect from Isiah.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

I was wondering if drafting nate could mean the end of marbury in NY. Honestly, I never thought we needed a backup PG. Marbury is one of the best (but probably not the best as he claims) PGs in NBA now and Crawford is more than capable enough to slide over to PG when Marbury is out. At worst, Penny was also a average/decent ball handler. With Robinson now, do you think that the Knicks could trade Marbury away and move Crawford to PG again? Richardson could play SG and TT SF, so we would still have a pretty good starting backcourt, and we would have whatever we get from trading Marbury too. Somehow, Crawford/Robinson sounds more betterto me than Marbury/Crawford/Robinson, and would alllow Ariza more playing time and chances to develope. Thoughts?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> and we would have whatever we get from trading Marbury too


thats the real question..what could you get for marbury???

A package from Dallas??A deal with Indy??Houston,Minny and Tor need him but what do they have that we want??


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

great, we used a first rounder on a guy whos gonna play 8 minutes a game! I CANT FREAKIN WAIT


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

They could do this start Marbury, and Richardson then have Robingson and Crawford come off the bench as the two backups.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

If jamal comes off the bench...theres no reason he cant back up both positions. they only way nate gets any play more then 8 mins a game is if jamal and q both start.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

In just 1 trade you guys added 2 guys who do the head tap thing.


----------



## Kekai (Jan 12, 2005)

Laker Freak said:


> In just 1 trade you guys added 2 guys who do the head tap thing.


LOL. Yea they are my boyz


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Last thing we need is for Marbury to continue to grind out his weary joints for 40 mins a night while "resting" on defense.

Unfortunately we didn't get to see Jamal at point nearly enough last season. he looked terrible in the beginning of the season, but pretty good at the end, but all based on a rather small sample size.

Ultimately I think Isiah (or maybe it's just me) sees both of them as flakey and mercurial - the kinds that can bring you up, or bring you down - and would like to be in a position to move either, should a good opportunity arise.

So basically our depth chart looks like this (Not counting Penny and Houston, who I expect traded, waived, banished, IR, whatever).

PG - Steph, Robinson, Crawford
SG - Q, Crawford, Ariza
SF - TT, Ariza, Q, JYD, Lee
PF - Sweets, Rose, Mo, Lee, JYD, Butler
C- Frye, Rose, Sweets, Taylor, Butler

Something like that.

So we're really no deeper at PG than any other position, and we needed to be able to rest Steph without as great falloff in production. Oh, and Robinson plays D, which Crawford does not.


----------



## Biggestfanoftheknicks (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



alphadog said:


> Just what we need ..a 5'9 shooting guard...or is he a 5'9'pg that needs ball handling improvement. Worthy of that pick? I just don't see it. Could have added petro or Blatch or numerous others.


PETRO???? WHAT??? We had Petro when his name was CEZRYEYRY TRYBANKDSNFKHLDKLJH

Ball Handling Improvement?? WHAT??Nate has good handles. He just has poor shooting. He is Earl Boykins. He will be valuable 

You know maybe Ukic or Andrelads;fjklsajdf;lkjdsafkl; because they have great upside,but the only other arguable pick was siemen, who we have, in 5 different forms.

GO GO NATE. Wait til you see this kid dunk, hit the floor and chase the ball down on the court. Isiah is looking for his legacy, while this kid isn't as talented I'm sure with Zeke's help he'll go far. 43" vertical people. 

If he doesn't develop a jumpshot he won't go that far, but if he does, he'll be an awesome back up.


<img src="http://www.spokesmanreview.com/stories/2004/Feb/19/a1489476.jpg" </img>

<img src="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/03/19/2002213341.jpg"</img>


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Nate has greatly improved his shooting and is a good ball handler and can play d. If he was 6'1 he would have gone top 5. This guy is gonna be special in my opinon and will eventually break the rules for players his size and become a good starting point someday.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: Oh yeah...*

Not to get too caught up in the little things, but a 43" vertical seems rather amazing. How does that compare to some of the other great leapers in the game today?


----------



## Knicksfan3 (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Oh yeah...*

I am very happy with Nate, I think he will bring enthusiasm, quickness and some excitement to the Garden. He will be a solid backup to Marbury and will get his time to play. If anyone is upset about getting Nate, I really can't understand why.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

40+ is skywalkin', 36-40 is right up there...35 is prolly average


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

lets send him to the dunk contest.

when the hell is the last time a knick was in one?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

alphadog said:


> 40+ is skywalkin', 36-40 is right up there...35 is prolly average


So who else is in the 40+ club?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



son of oakley said:


> Not to get too caught up in the little things, but a 43" vertical seems rather amazing. How does that compare to some of the other great leapers in the game today?


43" vertical was the best in the draft with Will Bynum..I dont think many guys get above 44"...Nate also runs a 4.4 fourty and was a starting corner for Washington..The guy is a world class athlete..

The nets worked out a brazilian guy who thorn said is the best leaper that has been in the Champion center..Thats a bold statement considering we are talking kmart,vince and rj

BiggestFan is dead on in his assessment..Hes remarkable,a bit like Spud,but a better athlete..and stronger...He weighs close to 185,and i guarantee nobody is beating him off the dribble...the freeway will be closing shortly


p.s.. david lee has serious hops as well....


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

son of oakley said:


> So who else is in the 40+ club?


Here is a list of some of the more popular players' verticals in the NBA. The sources are pretty reliable, most are from NBA.com, but they may not be correct. Everyone hears differently about player's verticals, so it's always hard to know for sure.

Vince Carter - 43"

Steve Francis - 43"

Antonio McDyess - 42"

Allen Iverson - 41"

Rex Chapmann - 39"

Kobe Bryant - 38"

Shaquille Oneal - 32"

Lamar Odom - 32"

Karl Malone - 28"



Retired Players

Michael Jordan - 48"

Spud Webb - 46"

Dee Brown - 44"

Harold Miner - 44"

Dominique Wilkins - 42"

Larry Nance - 40"

Julius Erving - 41"

Shawn Kemp - 40" (before he got fat)

Ralph Sampson - 36"

Magic Johnson - 30"



Other High Verticals (Non-NBA)

Michael Wilson (Globetrotters) - 51"

Reggie Thompson (Jumpsoles) - 53"

Ronnie Fields (CBA) - 48"

Melvin Levett - 45"

Randy Moss (NFL) - 51"

Jevon Kearse (NFL - 265 lbs) - 40"

- 40" 
Brandon Dean (NCAA - Arkansas) - 39" 
Desmond Mason (NCAA - Okla. St) - 38" 

High Jumpers that Visited my Page 

Kadour Ziani (French Exhibition Dunker) - 56" 
Ant (Sky's the Limit Creator) - 41" 
AirWhitey (MADUPS Creator) - 41"


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

truth said:


> Here is a list of some of the more popular players' verticals in the NBA. The sources are pretty reliable, most are from NBA.com, but they may not be correct. Everyone hears differently about player's verticals, so it's always hard to know for sure.
> 
> Vince Carter - 43"
> 
> ...


Wow, good detective work, truth.

Thanks. He's in good company,


----------



## Kekai (Jan 12, 2005)

Mcdyess has a 42 inch vert??? woww


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Kekai23 said:


> Mcdyess has a 42 inch vert??? woww


that was 3 knee operations ago....but that was amazing considering he is 6'10" 250...

man,jevon kearse is truly a freak....

and randy moss has a 50"+ vertical????


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



son of oakley said:


> Not to get too caught up in the little things, but a 43" vertical seems rather amazing. How does that compare to some of the other great leapers in the game today?


It's actually 48 inches... I went to the Blazers draft party last night and there was a lot of talk about Nate Robinson, I guess the Blazers were close to picking him, or trading for his draft rights.


----------



## malik959 (Jun 22, 2005)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



sabas4mvp said:


> It's actually 48 inches... I went to the Blazers draft party last night and there was a lot of talk about Nate Robinson, I guess the Blazers were close to picking him, or trading for his draft rights.



Great God All Mighty! Where can I find pics of this kid?


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



malik959 said:


> Great God All Mighty! Where can I find pics of this kid?


Try searching google for Gary Coleman... JK, I go to University of Oregon and Nate sure got a ton of crap from the student sections. Despite my bias I can admit he is one hell of an athlete.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



sabas4mvp said:


> Try searching google for Gary Coleman... JK, I go to University of Oregon and Nate sure got a ton of crap from the student sections. Despite my bias I can admit he is one hell of an athlete.


awesome pics....there might be a video on espn with j bilas showing his one haned follow up slam..we better not trade him..i love zeke for this pic


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



truth said:


> awesome pics....there might be a video on espn with j bilas showing his one haned follow up slam..we better not trade him..i love zeke for this pic


word. i look at the things boykins does for denver and nate could do the same types of things for us, which is bring alot of energy and hustle, and handle that rock and run the ship. im looking forwrd to seeing steph and nate in the same backcourt often. he needs to work on his J a bit though, but the guy is dedicated, he'll put in work.


----------



## Knicksfan3 (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: Oh yeah...*

If Nate does what Boykins brings to the table for Denver then I will be very happy. I watched Nate a few times on TV and caught a good glimpse of him in the NCAA Tourney, he's gonna really help out the Knicks in so many spots. I still can't believe how well we made out with that trade...


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



malik959 said:


> Great God All Mighty! Where can I find pics of this kid?


click on nate robinson and watch the video..he talks alot on the court..they only show one jam

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/prospects


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Laker Freak said:


> In just 1 trade you guys added 2 guys who do the head tap thing.













Now if you add Darius you'll have the market cornered on headtappadge.


----------



## Turkish Delight (Mar 17, 2004)

Why not Jarrett Jack?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Nate Robinson as a Knick:


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Oh yeah...*



truth said:


> click on nate robinson and watch the video..*he talks alot on the court*..they only show one jam
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/prospects


Yeah, I see the Oregon Duck and friends call him 'Gary Coleman' like we do on the Arizona boards.

We also call him 'Mighty Mouth', since current Blazer and former UA Cat Damon Stoudamire had the nickname 'Mighty Mouse'. As far as his mouth speed, he's Gary Payton II.

The guy can ball though, no doubt.

The Knicks definitely got 2 guys that will make the all-soundbite team, though they couldn't be more different. Nate will get under the skin of alot of the players he faces. Frye will be invited home for dinner. Weird combo.

Your first rounders posing together;


----------

