# Gamplan 2008



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

It's September and so far, here are personnel changes from last season:

*Additions*
Chris Duhon...PG
Danilo Gallanari...F
Anthony Roberson....G

*Subtractions*
Fred Jones...SG
Randolph Morris...C
Ronaldo Balkman...F

It's evident that those changes from a talent standpoint was mostly insignificant but we still have enough talent to be competitive. Here are a few things that I think could help make this team interesting to watch this season:

1.) Start Randolph at the 5 over Curry, and Jefferies at the 4. From the reports we're hearing, Curry has showed up to camp out of shape which is simply inexcusable even to a Knick fan that still believes in his abilities. 

At this point, Randolph offers the scoring game and rebounding game of a 5. The defense is still an issue but is a much better option at the 5 against slower opponents than at the 4 where his lack of lateral quickness is exposed. Jefferies' shot blocking and defensive ability helps to counteract the doughnut hole effect down low. Jared's skillset also becomes a bigger threat offensively in a more sped up offense at the 4 because of his athleticism and bball IQ; hopefully he develops a mid-range jimmy.

This move does allow us to build up Randolph's trade value and help us move him for a package we actually want.

2.) Form a rotation and stick with it. D'Antoni has been a big supporter of an 8 man system, which is exactly what this team needs. Doing so would allow us to build chemistry and allow us to cut down on the sloppy decision making we had last year.

3.) Bring Marbury off of the bench. Cancer or not, the guy has talent and is far to valuable to let walk away for next to nothing. He's certainly no Gary Payton at this point so I think it would be best to utilize him in a manner that allows us to win and for him to play his game. I think the bench does this because he is an excellent scorer and the sort of spark that might be what this team needs with Crawford starting. He likely will complain about the situation but if he plays well I don't think it would take us long to find him a new home; the Warriors should certainly have interest with Ellis injuried and Davis a Clipper (I'd take Harrington and Azubike).


*These moves would have three objectives in mind:*
1.) Increasing players value to maximize the possibilities that we can pursue to improve this team via trade (specifically), free agent signings, or in house improvements.
2.) Establishing a sense of identity as an uptempo, high octane team.
3.)Identifying which players are fits for this sort of system.


My starting lineup would look like this:
*Starters*
Chris Duhon...PG
Jamal Crawford...SG
Wilson Chandler...SF
Jared Jefferies...F
Zach Randolph...F/C

*Rotation*
Stephon Marbury...PG
Quentin Richardson...G/F
David Lee...F
Eddy Curry...C (Fringe player)


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Have fun starting Zach at center. The Knicks will be the worst defensive team in the NBA if that somehow happens. Mark my words.


What's a Gamplan?


----------



## shazha (Nov 20, 2002)

Yeah Zak at 4 is a no go. Also Marbury has come out saying he wont come off the bench for NY. If hes on the team he will want to start.

I would like to see a line up of:

5. Lee
4. Randolf
3. Chandler
2. Crawford
1. Marbury

I think Starbury deserves one last chance, hes in shape this year wanting to turn things around. Cant say the same about Eddie Curry who IMO has to be traded. But to who? I dont think anybody would want this guy on their team. Maybe the Kings could get rid of some bad contracts, i.e Brad Miller for Curry and his "youth".

If Marbury doesnt work out, then the sooner Curry and Marbury are off the team, the sooner the Knicks can start fresh and rebuild.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> 1.) Start Randolph at the 5 over Curry, and Jefferies at the 4. From the reports we're hearing, Curry has showed up to camp out of shape which is simply inexcusable even to a Knick fan that still believes in his abilities.
> 
> At this point, Randolph offers the scoring game and rebounding game of a 5. The defense is still an issue but is a much better option at the 5 against slower opponents than at the 4 where his lack of lateral quickness is exposed. Jefferies' shot blocking and defensive ability helps to counteract the doughnut hole effect down low. Jared's skillset also becomes a bigger threat offensively in a more sped up offense at the 4 because of his athleticism and bball IQ; hopefully he develops a mid-range jimmy.


Jefferies is a bench wramer. He should not be in the rotation. He has no offensive skill set what so ever, and is not nearly as good as people try to make him sound on denfense. Lee should start, or anyone but Jefferies lol.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Have fun starting Zach at center. The Knicks will be the worst defensive team in the NBA if that somehow happens. Mark my words.
> 
> 
> What's a Gamplan?


We're already pretty much the worse defensive team in the league, so not much to lose there. Still, I like Zach much better defensively at the 5 than the 4 because of the lateral quickness issue; I'd say he'd be better than Curry there. We might be better offensively because we'd be far much dynamic in our plan of attack from several positions.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

shazha said:


> Yeah Zak at 4 is a no go. Also Marbury has come out saying he wont come off the bench for NY. If hes on the team he will want to start.
> 
> I would like to see a line up of:
> 
> ...


Why is Zack a no go for you? 

As for Marbury, he needs that he can not afford to duplicate last season if he ever cares to make good money in the league again. Besides, if the Knicks promise not to let him go, he has no other choice but to play good soldier to build his value for us to do so on more favorable terms.

I think your lineup is flawed. Playing David Lee and Zach Randolph only hurts, not helps our cause. Lee is regarded as the player he is because he rebounds particularly well. Unfortunately, he offers very little outside of this and his passing game. Playing Randolph only limits Lee's effectiveness which is why he'd be better served off the bench, which is not an option for Randolph in our predicament. 

Starting Marbury is also a mistake IMO. I think he is a much better player than he's shown and that people consider him to be. Put him in the right system and I think he could help make a team a contender. That team, however, would have to be particularly good at shooting the ball which we are not; Marbury's entire passing game is predicated off of driving and kicking (which he does pretty well), so we'd need shooters to make the most of it. He'd also be better served off the bench with us because of that and the fact that he would not have to worry about necessarily running the offense.

I've also been considering switching allegiance and joining the trade Curry bandwagon. I'm not there yet but certainly moving closer to it. Brad Miller is actually one of the guys I'd like back in return. Milicic and Jaric works for me as well. Gerald Wallace is a bit of a stretch but he is supposedly on the block and the Bobcats do need scoring. Marvin Williams and filler also works for me.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Jefferies is a bench wramer. He should not be in the rotation. He has no offensive skill set what so ever, and is not nearly as good as people try to make him sound on denfense. Lee should start, or anyone but Jefferies lol.


Jefferies is a role player but that doesn't mean he's a bench warmer. I initially speculated that he'd be an excellent fit in D'Antoni's system where he could play the 4 spot. It appears I might be right since all I've been hearing is how Jefferies has been impressive. He might not have an offensive skillset but neither does Ben Wallace at this point in his career and he starts. In an uptempo system, everyone becomes a threat becasue everyone is moving to the rim. I don't care how bad you are in the NBA, you can make layups consistently. In either case, Jefferies certainly would be a better fit as a starter because of the simple fact that he doesn't need the ball and does the little things that scorers don't do; next to Chandler (who figures to be a scorer) and Randolph, Jefferies IS EXACTLY what we need.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> We're already pretty much the worse defensive team in the league, so not much to lose there. Still, I like Zach much better defensively at the 5 than the 4 because of the lateral quickness issue; I'd say he'd be better than Curry there. We might be better offensively because we'd be far much dynamic in our plan of attack from several positions.


How does Zach or Curry playing notable minutes fit in at all with D'Antoni's scheme? That's just counterproductive.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> How does Zach or Curry playing notable minutes fit in at all with D'Antoni's scheme? That's just counterproductive.


Randolph at the 5, actually makes him one of the more faster centers in the league; lower center of gravity.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Right now it looks like Zach should be the one to play that 5, Curry came into camp looking like a bloated submarine. It really bothers me when these multi-millionaire athletes who don't take it upon themselves to report to work and do what they suppose to do, and that means reporting to work in shape. It's down right pathetic, and if anyone has the audacity to co-sign for that dude has got to be mentally challenged.


----------



## Truknicksfan (Mar 25, 2005)

> Jefferies is a role player but that doesn't mean he's a bench warmer.


Since when do role players start?



> I initially speculated that he'd be an excellent fit in D'Antoni's system where he could play the 4 spot. It appears I might be right since all I've been hearing is how Jefferies has been impressive.


We heard how impressive Jefferies was last camp too and he was horrid during the regular season.



> In an uptempo system, everyone becomes a threat becasue everyone is moving to the rim. I don't care how bad you are in the NBA, you can make layups consistently.


I dont know, Ive seen Jeferies miss his fair share of lay-ups before lol.



> In either case, Jefferies certainly would be a better fit as a starter because of the simple fact that he doesn't need the ball and does the little things that scorers don't do; next to Chandler (who figures to be a scorer) and Randolph, Jefferies IS EXACTLY what we need.


I understand what your thinking, but I still think you put your best foot forward and start lee.


This is a moot debate anyway since Jefferies went down. (Another problem with him that he seems to be injury prone. Another one of Thomas's overpaid role players)


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Truknicksfan said:


> Since when do role players start?


LOL, since the NBA began.




Truknicksfan said:


> We heard how impressive Jefferies was last camp too and he was horrid during the regular season.


Excellent point. I do recall the same things being said last summer. Hopefully Jefferies was just a bad fit in an Isiah Thomas offense and not a terrible player.




Truknicksfan said:


> I dont know, Ive seen Jeferies miss his fair share of lay-ups before lol.


LOL, great point. I think he could make them more times than not though.




Truknicksfan said:


> I understand what your thinking, but I still think you put your best foot forward and start lee.


I guess the argument just comes down to personnel perference.




Truknicksfan said:


> This is a moot debate anyway since Jefferies went down. (Another problem with him that he seems to be injury prone. Another one of Thomas's overpaid role players)


This sucks because I was looking forward to seeing him play.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Randolph at the 5, actually makes him one of the more faster centers in the league; lower center of gravity.


Joakim Noah will be having career nights against him.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> Joakim Noah will be having career nights against him.


Joakim Noah is not good enough to be having a career night against anyone, lol.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

You stick Zach at center, you'll be surprised how many clunky centers start lighting him up.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Jacoby_Ellsbury said:


> You stick Zach at center, you'll be surprised how many clunky centers start lighting him up.


Not many considering there are only a handful that can actually put the ball into the basket beyond just a few accidents. Besides, Randolph is more than quick enough and strong enough to be an efficient defender at the 5 especially with a leanky help defender at the 4.


----------

