Roco has failed twice in the row to understand the difference of perspective I see between the front office and the jersey I root for. I root for the Knicks they're my favorite team, I want success. I boo the management when they don't make the best decisions cause I want success for my favorite team. How is that flip flopping? Roco, you've repeated yourself three times and failed to understand. If you're going to write a lot, then at least settle the point. You're just spinning this argument in circles that it doesn't need to go in. Its really simple, I explained it to you in two or three very different ways. Its just a waste of time if you're trying so hard to be misunderstanding.
I'll answer for you, Roco.
I'm not convinced Curry or Randolph will lead us consistently to a winning record till I see it. I will root for them so they can surprise me.
You always bring up the Layden era when Isiah weaknesses are presented to your face. It seems like you shy away from mentioning any of Isiah mistakes(apologist agenda), and look to previous past events that can cover up for Isiah. It has been repeated what you said I've heard the same thing over and over.
3 years of losing is good because Isiah is "searching". So Isiah can be excused why he searches for a foundation? How can you create a "foundation" when you don't have a core? Similar to the body. You can't do **** without your core, your body is very important for balance and flexibility, especially for sports like boxing and etc.
Speaking of our core (Eddy Curry), how does he rank up against other "cores" in the NBA? Curry is ranked 25th-30th on the ranking of primary scorers or the core player on teams. Curry isn't even a top 50 overall NBA player. So my question is, how can anyone not be convinced Isiah is a dumbass for having such an inferior core like Curry and expecting winning success?
Do you think Portland wanted Randolph as their core? Did you believe Chicago wanted Curry as their core? Did you believe Orlando wanted Francis as their core? Did you believe Phoneix wanted Marbury as their core? If you did, you're not very bright. Portland, Orlando, Phoneix, and Chicago wanted something, success, a foundation lead by a real core player who can hold it down for his team and a future.
Are those teams heading that direction? Yes.
Why? Portland got rid of an inferior core player with Randolph; with Randolph as the guy in Portland both their defense and offense suffered, while Randolph numbers improved slowly each season. What they did was let a more promising superiorly defensive Aldridge replace Randolph, while leaving the foundation to Oden and Roy, two of the most promising basketball prospects from the United States. Sounds like a good plan to me, I would be pretty excited if Isiah did that for my team.
Orlando? Steve Francis was expected to replace T'Mac's throne in Orlando. Orlando quickly realized Steve Francis wasn't the type of player that was going to help them win. They let Francis go cause he was holding Dwight's develop back. Dwight wasn't getting enough touches in the post, and it wasn't a good sign for Orlando's future and core(Dwight Howard). Orlando ships Francis and becomes a playoff team the season after. Good progress. Now they have a nice balanced team building their foundation around Dwight Howard, not just some guy who took like 3-4 years to be productive from HS, we're talking about Dwight Howard, one of the best young players and big men you can find in the NBA.
Chicago? Well its simple. Chicago saw better opportunities for winning and still have the luxury to keep a young foundation of talented players, by trading Curry, for cap space and replacing him with Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas. Having one of the best defenses and best point differential isn't a bad step from dumping Curry. Chicago understood the situation and capitalized. Now Chicago is one of the top teams in the East, with a deep squad and still with one of the best set of young talented players who play a lot of minutes.
Phoneix, well basically they saw Amare emerging and didn't see Marbury taking them to that new level. They traded for cap space and acquired Steve Nash, a guy who took it that new level for Phoneix. Never underestimate the opportunities that cap space can do. You can also look at how GM's misused cap space when they had that opportunity. Which is why I'm kinda afraid if Isiah had cap space, I wouldn't even imagine the ridiculously offers he would give away. Darius Miles signed for 7 years, 393 billion dollars. Trying to recruit the whole Chicago area reject squad or something, lol.
Anyway, back to what I'm not understand about your post. I understand you have a serious level of appreciation for Isiah's effort. But isn't the team success, benefits and future is more important than your feelings for Isiah?
3 years of losing with majority the same reasons (defense and turnovers) should convince Isiah isn't trying to address our weaknesses, instead he's making moves that really aren't having much of an impact on our team, but more so the other teams (Phoneix, Portland, Orlando, Chicago, Toronto).
I give Isiah props for getting Balkman, Collins and Lee. Must respect, the man can find some gems in the draft. But also can't miss the fact he drafted guys like Robinson and Frye a little too high. Simple mistakes, but its okay. Theres other bigger problems to worry about, that I've seen you ignored so much. I'm just trying to keep everyone aware, I love this team and I don't want to see another 30 win season because we don't know how to move and protect the ball or let the team shoot lights us against consistently.
Actually Roco, the past losing season was decently fun, alot of dramatic games, we saw Balkman and Collins hit the scene, we saw David Lee become the beast he is, we saw Q-Rich play like an all star for a short period of time, we saw Marbury finally matured into an all around unselfish PG, and we even saw Eddy Curry work on his foul problems(even though it was pathetic how he didn't try on defense anymore just to stay on the court and not foul out).
I can assure you that I know we don't have the certified shot blocker that we'd like to have. Our defense isn't among the best in the league, as I think we should all hope for someday soon. We have been careless with the ball for the last two seasons, and that's a big concern for most, if not all knicks fans
I agree 100% to the max.
I understand your perspectives on the JJ signing. I just never saw it as a smart move from the beginning, unfortunately I was one of the few people who pretty pissed that off season(I'm always pissed each off season). But the Larry Brown signing and Jerome James signing, I honestly saw nothing good coming out of it, I didn't see how they would fit and my hypothesis turned out to be correct.
Nah, thats only one simple part of being successful. Taking stupid risk isn't part of being successful. You have to be aware at all times. Plus, all those risk Isiah took, didn't really make us "successful" yet.
I think what you're trying to say, being able to change and adapt is part of being successful. You don't do the same thing for 10 years and expect to be successful. Times change, different trends and etc. You change and adapt in order to be successful. This what Isiah hasn't done. He has not adapt or accepted our weaknesses as seriously he's suppose to. But I'll leave it there. If Isiah gets Artest, I'd forget about most mistakes he made in the past because we'll finally have a sick squad full of perimeter defenders.
You don't appear on the verge of breaking out in 11 games, lets be serious here Roco. Jerome James was never that good, and because he played good in 11 games doesn't mean he's ready to break out of his role as 3rd string NBA center.
In 2005, we had a roster of players that didn't pride themselves on defense. You think adding a hard head like Larry Brown wouldn't cause a lot of chaos and tension?
If Isiah didn't make majority of his trades, we would of been under the cap a long time ago.
Teams wanted to stop Curry from scoring, but they knew he didn't pass the ball, which made our offense (potentially a very good offense with a lot of weapons), only a 97 ppg offense. I've seen the Knicks last season compete with the best teams offensively in the NBA without Curry on the court, they played more loosely and the defense was immensely improved. Anyway, this was just my observation from last season, I could be proven wrong easily.
I would address the turnover problem by dropping turnover prone players. Simple.
Suns are 10th best in the NBA in turnovers committed and are the best team in the NBA at passing the ball...so whats your point? 3 turnovers is a huge DIFFERENCE, you never knew that brother? Suns move the ball at a high up tempo pace and have the best offense in the NBA and have the best assist to turnover ratio in the NBA(Bet you didn't bother to look that up cause it would of killed your argument), Knicks don't have those things. Stop using irrelevant stats that don't help your argument. Bottom line is 17 turnovers a game doesn't equal a good offense, especially when you give the ball to the team a lot with even a weaker defense. Its not a good chemistry for success basically, understand?
I understand what you mean by Green being younger and "youthier" lol...but Ray Allen is on such an elite level, Boston did the right move. They're trying to win now, and not worry about 3-5 years from now. Hell, I would give up 3 years of losing to see Garnett and Ray Allen on my team.
Lets say nothing about Kobe or Wade, they're not on the Knicks and won't be on the Knicks anytime soon so I'm not playing with these unreal scenarios. We have a major turnover problem we need to address. You don't address the player by adding more isolation players. You first subtract the turnover prone players and add more offensive aware players.
Well, you made it seem like you intended Marbury/JC11/H20 to be compared with Kidd Allen and Kobe. Lets not try comparing B level players to A level players, its not very bright.
Sorry I gotta be mean about this but, Slowly but surely? Thats a loser mentality brother. 90 million dollar pay roll is a good thing now when we could of been off the cap a year ago? Possibly 70 million...lol, we aren't even certain if Isiah will keep let those expiring contracts expire. 120 - 90 million dollars for 20-30 win seasons? Thats poor results and very little success. Not really MUCH to deny that Isiah is a poor GM.
Roco, me and billions of other Knick fans would much rather have Chicago concerns of locking up their winning foundation than being concerned of still "searching for a foundation".
Chicago only kept Brand for two seasons? Same with Miller who was only mediocre when he was playing with Chicago and same with Artest.
Cleveland, Orlando, Houston, and Detroit were some of the best defensive teams in the NBA, thats why they made the playoffs, not because they averaged 97 ppg. You bringing those teams up was a waste of text.
Wrong, Sun's defense wasn't worse than the Knicks, I have stats to back up it too.
Oppoents vs the Suns
Opponents vs the Knicks
Keep in mind Suns play at the highest tempo in the NBA, so the opposing team is going to have more positions. Where as the Knicks played at a slow pace and still manage to give up 100 points per game. When playing at a high tempo, the opponents PPG is expended to increase, thats an obvious.
Don't see through a tunnel so much Roco, I'm talking about defense and turnovers. If you bring up the Suns, they have a great turnover/assist ratio, so you bringing them up would only strengthen my point even more. Gracias.
We improved our talent yes, but we didn't answer the team weaknesses. Thats my point, nothing difficult to understand.
I guess no one knows how Randolph will answer the Knicks turnover, interior and perimeter defensive problems. Thank you Isiah for leaving us so clueless.