Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: 2 losses explaining why we need a reliable playmaking PG

  1. #1
    Quiet Storm New New York's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,431
    Rep Power
    16

    Default 2 losses explaining why we need a reliable playmaking PG

    Look I have been neutral about Dantoni all season and my patience is running thin....yet this is as much about PG play than anything

    Boston simply did what they did to us in the playoffs when Chauncy went down....they trapped Melo hard as he brought up the ball and like Jeff Van Gundy said "our offense was starting at half court with half the shot clock down"

    We need someone who can handle the rock and break down the D

    Think about Shumps Alley to Chandler towards the end of the game, that shows you what getting into the lane will do....They trapped Shump and he threw a lob

    Ricky Rubio's ability to drive and kick has changed the Wolve's dynamic tremendously!!!


    Now on D....we got to rebound the ball!!!

    We lose by two and I can count 10 pts in the second half alone off of offensive boards!

    That also means we have to come out of this corny zone D! Players want to prove they can D-Up then they have to do it in man to man sets!

    And while Amare has improved he needs to go after every board as if he anticipates there being another man to fight for the ball with!

  2. #2
    Veteran knicksin60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,678
    Rep Power
    9

    Default


  3. #3
    Superstar NYCLakerfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    611
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    PG situation is the biggest problem for this team even bigger than the coach, Shumps to inexperienced and not a natural play maker, TD just sucks, and Melo shouldn't have the ball in his hands that much is stagnates the offense.

  4. #4
    SWAGABURY KingStarbury3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chinabury
    Posts
    3,313
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Linburys the answer, now we just need to waive Amarknee

  5. #5
    Superstar NYCLakerfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    611
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Yea waive Amare and have a glaring hole at the 4, you guys are to fast turn on Amare you gotta give him some time with a decent PG or even the playoffs if the Knicks make it.

  6. #6
    Superstar jzero29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Staten Island, New York
    Posts
    650
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    You see what a true PG can make this team do. if he can penetrate, the defense is helpless against either chandler or amare cutting...heck I suspect even jefferies and jorts would have a good game from great PG play.
    Lin, broke down the defense, made it to the basket and scored...so now, when he continues to beat his man, the defense is more aware of him getting to the basket, they leave their man...which on this team could be amare, chandler and melo. amare and melo can be devastating to a defender trying to rotate to them. I see good things if Lin gets minutes!
    Lin had some pretty sick passes in that game. big things! hope he can delvelope enough to make this type of game his regular output.

  7. #7
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,314
    Rep Power
    20

    Angry Dont blame the Player....FIRE Dantoni

    Originally Posted by NYCLakerfan
    PG situation is the biggest problem for this team even bigger than the coach, Shumps to inexperienced and not a natural play maker, TD just sucks, and Melo shouldn't have the ball in his hands that much is stagnates the offense.

    Being a Lakers-fan u should know our PG is not our biggest problem....
    Did Kobe & Van Exel coexist in the backcourt? NO!
    Did Kobe & Harper co-exist in the backcourt? Hell Yeah, 2 championships.
    Did Kobe & Fisher co-exist in the backcourt? Hell yeah, 3 championships.
    Headcoach Phil Jackson knows a top contender-team must have a backcourt
    that co-exist together (Jordan & Pippin).

    The Knicks have young role-player guards that has not been given the
    chance to (match-up to) co-exist together as a tandem backcourt floor
    leader. u need two-guards to run a lineup, not depend on one-guard.
    The Knicks guard-substitution has been "pitiful" all season long.

    We have to many single-minded "Dantoni-Nash Fans" as Knicks-Fans.
    Watching 24 Knicks games and not one game showed (Melo/Stat/Tyson)
    our 3 frontcourt players co-existing on offense or defense. That's a FACT!

    Here are the question u need to answer before mentioning the Knicks
    have a PG problem........

    Who do Lin match-up best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Shump match-up best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Bibby match-up best with in the backcourt?
    Who do TD matchup best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Walker matchup best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Fields matchup best with in the backcourt?

    Our NO-Strategy flawed Headcoach is still looking for a creative
    floor-leader "Steve Nash" to coach his team to success...

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,314
    Rep Power
    20

    Default Lin & Shump need playingtime to develope (tier-3 PG)

    Originally Posted by jzero29
    You see what a true PG can make this team do. if he can penetrate, the defense is helpless against either chandler or amare cutting...heck I suspect even jefferies and jorts would have a good game from great PG play.
    Lin, broke down the defense, made it to the basket and scored...so now, when he continues to beat his man, the defense is more aware of him getting to the basket, they leave their man...which on this team could be amare, chandler and melo. amare and melo can be devastating to a defender trying to rotate to them. I see good things if Lin gets minutes!
    Lin had some pretty sick passes in that game. big things! hope he can delvelope enough to make this type of game his regular output.
    We are talking about a "LOTTERY" Nets team (probably a Top-3 D.League Team)...

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    We are talking about a "LOTTERY" Nets team (probably a Top-3 D.League Team)...
    True Kiya. But Lin made Derron Williams look foolish and stop him scoring. Yes, the Nets stink, and yes, one good game from Lin doesn`t make him a great player but he shut down and outplayed Derron Williams a point guard that many say is the best in the game.

  10. #10
    KnicksonLIN.com
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,073
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    We are talking about a "LOTTERY" Nets team (probably a Top-3 D.League Team)...
    Exactly. Jeremy Lin is a good point guard, but he's not going to average anything close to what he put up against the Nets.

    The Nets are a very bad defensive team, and a lot of Jeremy Lin's lay ups were wide open.

    I do think he deserves to start, because he's a good passer and an okay defender.

    But the Knicks are not going to magically start winning with Antoni still coaching the team. Antoni has to go, before the Knicks can be successful.

  11. #11
    Next season, keep waiting donchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    1,697
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    This team is totally ****ed. Point guards don't grow off trees. We had more good point guards last season then we have in the last 15 years. Now the team and the city is counting on Barron Davis? We've been talking about coaching changes, how about putting Glen Grunwald back in the filing room and bringing in a new GM? The notion that the team will be fine with two stars that play very close in position without a true point guard is a stonable offense. Who ever said ' Don't worry about it, we've got Tony' should be castrated with a rusty spoon. You know that conversation had to take place when Knicks brought in Chandler.

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally Posted by donchris
    Point guards don't grow off trees.
    Most good players don't grow on trees. I'd be worried if they did.

    We needed a good SG last year. We needed a good Center the years before. We were rotating coaches with Thomas at the helm. We needed a SF after the Spree years. We needed a better bench in the 90s. I can't remember a time the Knicks had all their bases covered (actually, maybe in the late 90s).

    Few teams are ever rarely in that "sweet spot" where they have the players, the staff, the arena... everything. There will always be needs that have to be filled, but at least the Knick roster is fairly well-rounded this year. (Injuries notwithstanding.)

    An All-Star caliber pair of Forwards ('Melo and STAT) -- yes they both could have better games recently. An intimidating big-man in Chandler. A pair of defensive-minded forwards in Jordan and Jeffries. A quick center with the Jorts. On the other end, we get two impressive young guards with Lin and Shumpert. A pair of shooters with Fields and Novak. A solid backup swingman in Walker.

    We still have Balkman, a versatile forward, and Bibby, who despite all my detractions, is still a veteran NBA guard. The only factor I haven't considered is Baron Davis since he hasn't played in months.

    Could we use more All-stars? Sure, who couldn't? But we have able tools. We just need to do something with them.

  13. #13
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    Being a Lakers-fan u should know our PG is not our biggest problem....
    Did Kobe & Van Exel coexist in the backcourt? NO!
    Did Kobe & Harper co-exist in the backcourt? Hell Yeah, 2 championships.
    Did Kobe & Fisher co-exist in the backcourt? Hell yeah, 3 championships.
    Headcoach Phil Jackson knows a top contender-team must have a backcourt
    that co-exist together (Jordan & Pippin).

    The Knicks have young role-player guards that has not been given the
    chance to (match-up to) co-exist together as a tandem backcourt floor
    leader. u need two-guards to run a lineup, not depend on one-guard.
    The Knicks guard-substitution has been "pitiful" all season long.

    We have to many single-minded "Dantoni-Nash Fans" as Knicks-Fans.
    Watching 24 Knicks games and not one game showed (Melo/Stat/Tyson)
    our 3 frontcourt players co-existing on offense or defense. That's a FACT!


    Here are the question u need to answer before mentioning the Knicks
    have a PG problem........

    Who do Lin match-up best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Shump match-up best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Bibby match-up best with in the backcourt?
    Who do TD matchup best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Walker matchup best with in the backcourt?
    Who do Fields matchup best with in the backcourt?


    Our NO-Strategy flawed Headcoach is still looking for a creative
    floor-leader "Steve Nash" to coach his team to success...
    I don't think Jordan & Pipen were in the back-court, but I get what you're saying.

    And believe it or not the few games we won our Broadway Bigs did coexist and compliment each other, rare but it happened.

    The issue is the conflict with Mike's approach. There's many ways Mike influences his strategy stubbornly refusing to accept that the flaws it has are counteracted with the very bigs we have. He needs to understand that playing to our strength inside gives us the best chance at winning, that simple.

    Mike's reluctance (although he seems to be coming around) is demonstrated in his substitution patterns where he favors shooters, and the minutes he rations out and doesn't. It's obvious.

    Then of course there's that ever present "late game" coaching that veers its ugly head now and again.

    I'd say the best passer is who's best fit to be in the back-court, Mike says best shooter. I say if Laundry can't stop his man, then move Melo to the 2, and play some of the defenders we have at the three. I might even venture to say Laundry can run the point, he's passive enough and seems to have a handle.

    Originally Posted by New New York
    Look I have been neutral about Dantoni all season and my patience is running thin....yet this is as much about PG play than anything

    Boston simply did what they did to us in the playoffs when Chauncy went down....they trapped Melo hard as he brought up the ball and like Jeff Van Gundy said "our offense was starting at half court with half the shot clock down"

    We need someone who can handle the rock and break down the D

    Think about Shumps Alley to Chandler towards the end of the game, that shows you what getting into the lane will do....They trapped Shump and he threw a lob

    Ricky Rubio's ability to drive and kick has changed the Wolve's dynamic tremendously!!!


    Now on D....we got to rebound the ball!!!

    We lose by two and I can count 10 pts in the second half alone off of offensive boards!

    That also means we have to come out of this corny zone D! Players want to prove they can D-Up then they have to do it in man to man sets!

    And while Amare has improved he needs to go after every board as if he anticipates there being another man to fight for the ball with!

    I can agree that it goes without saying ANY team could use an adept PG.
    But being "neutral" regarding D'Antoni, considering the point you brought up about last years playoffs, is an example of denial.

    To trap a teams best scorer during points in the game is basic strategy, and any ball handler would help, as would a strategy to beat the press (along with practice and awareness to recognize such instances),

    but there were many instances where, point guard or not (now or then) that Mike's approach was exposed. To not recognize this again is denial.

    Originally Posted by pakopako
    Most good players don't grow on trees. I'd be worried if they did.

    We needed a good SG last year. We needed a good Center the years before. We were rotating coaches with Thomas at the helm. We needed a SF after the Spree years. We needed a better bench in the 90s. I can't remember a time the Knicks had all their bases covered (actually, maybe in the late 90s).

    Few teams are ever rarely in that "sweet spot" where they have the players, the staff, the arena... everything. There will always be needs that have to be filled, but at least the Knick roster is fairly well-rounded this year. (Injuries notwithstanding.)


    An All-Star caliber pair of Forwards ('Melo and STAT) -- yes they both could have better games recently. An intimidating big-man in Chandler. A pair of defensive-minded forwards in Jordan and Jeffries. A quick center with the Jorts. On the other end, we get two impressive young guards with Lin and Shumpert. A pair of shooters with Fields and Novak. A solid backup swingman in Walker.

    We still have Balkman, a versatile forward, and Bibby, who despite all my detractions, is still a veteran NBA guard. The only factor I haven't considered is Baron Davis since he hasn't played in months.

    Could we use more All-stars? Sure, who couldn't? But we have able tools. We just need to do something with them.
    Now this is a quality post. Love the perspective approach.

    My how we forget "we need" as been a montra for years! Did we forget we needed more size and defense even with a few PG's?

    When we go with the "we need" outlook we have to ask...

    IF we need a PG why didn't we

    1. draft one with those all important high picks?
    2. play some when we had them in favor of lesser players?
    3. Coach one up by now?
    4. accept Chauncey Billups?

    If we need size or defense (including rebounds) [DON'T FORGET THAT WAS AN ISSUE] why didn't we

    1. keep some of the size we had?
    2. play some of the size we had?
    3. use the size we had and have as a priority?

    A defensive coach...

    A competent consistent SG...

    A bench...

    As far as I see it, those "needs" were available, but evidently were squandered opportunities influenced by coach D'Antoni, no?

    Take Lin. He was just sent down and recalled because of injury. He wasn't going to get burn, and admits he didn't even get burn in practice with the starters.

    Doesn't Mike know he "needs" competent guards? Even if Lin looked ugly, he didn't even have enough potential to be worked with? Anthony Randolph didn't either? The jamaican sensation? On and on...

    Either Mike is clueless or has unbelievably high standards. And either way that's detrimental to team success, team before player and coach IMO.

  14. #14
    is the Bo$$ Toons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bahamas
    Posts
    2,379
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by abcd
    Exactly. Jeremy Lin is a good point guard, but he's not going to average anything close to what he put up against the Nets.

    The Nets are a very bad defensive team, and a lot of Jeremy Lin's lay ups were wide open.

    I do think he deserves to start, because he's a good passer and an okay defender.

    But the Knicks are not going to magically start winning with Antoni still coaching the team. Antoni has to go, before the Knicks can be successful.
    guess u were wrong...knicks got a good pg, and they "magically" started winning....we are successful, and dantoni is still the coach

  15. #15
    El Cacique portega1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    River Rocks, Port Rich (Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico PUNETA!!!)
    Posts
    1,611
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    To all who doubted:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •