no Trent Tucker or Rolando Blackman?
Mardy Collins (for Tuner)
After all the hate directed at Crawford, on this site, gone unchallenged, I think it's time that people who think, like me, that it's BS, create a Crawford support thread.
Most of the haters use Crawford's FG percentage, which has hovered around 40%, average for a guard, to make their point. However, Iverson, for example, has multiple years at around, or slightly below, 40 percent from the field. Haters use the percentage he shoots as their principle argument, when the fact is that players who attempt as many shots as Crawford, in such clutch, difficult, and well-defended, situations would likely shoot far less than 40. Crawford's got heart, he takes shots that a guy like Mike Miller, who shoots over 50 percent from the field, would never take, and I don't think any Knick fan would take Miller over Crawford, regardless of FG%, for that very fact. Haters also talk about Crawford's failure to make the playoffs, something that can't be blamed on him, simply because he's played on unstable teams, with poor leadership and weak inside players: Curry, mainly, who has followed him for his entire career.
They're also delusional, when arguing against Crawford's exceptional skills, which is evident when reading their crazy comments about Quentin Richardson being a better player than Crawford. Crawford is the best 2 guard, after Houston, that we've had in contemporary Knick times, better than Starks and Sprewell, who both benefited from playing on teams with the greatest knick ever, Patrick Ewing. Imagine Patrick Ewing with a guy like Crawford on his side, in, let's say, the 93-94 playoff run.
Let's look at what attributes make him, in my opinion, the best Knick on the current team. First of all, he can score in bunches, much more efficiently, and explosively, than any other current Knick, something which is key in breaking teams' will power. Secondly, he's clutch and can regularly score impact points, at key points in games, something many Knicks are not consistently capable of. Guys like Starks and Sprewell, for example, could not regularly do that, which is why I believe he's better than they were.
Crawford's biggest weakness is probably his defense, though I haven't seen him get exploited like he did last year. If D'Antoni starts running some real plays: screens, high post cuts, etc., for Crawford, look for our SG to really take us to the next level: I'm talking playoffs.
I don't know what these haters are seeing, when Crawford's in the game: he's a good player, one of the few bright spots we've had, over the years. As a former player and high school assistant basketball coach, for the PSAL, I know how much the lack of a good big man can hurt a team, and this is what I feel has held the knicks back, not Marbury or Crawford.
Anyway, maybe some of you can put up some statistics, and cover anything I missed, to back Crawford up, against the guaranteed coming backlash against this thread.
Last edited by OGKnickfan; Nov 18, 2008 at 11:30.
no Trent Tucker or Rolando Blackman?
sorry, I meant to say Hubert Davis.
This is the most epic failure I ever seen anyone display as a Knick fan.
Crawford the greatest SG of all time? The man who has kept this team from ever seeing the playoffs with his wreckless play and his losing odor that defects the team from ever being successful?
What a joke.
Ugh..when metro and I agree on something, you KNOW you've got a problem...
Craw doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Spree or Starks and it comes down to one word: PLAYOFFS. Spree and Starks went, and you can argue that Spree was the catalyst toward the 1999 Finals. Craw hasn't. End of discussion.
well at least you can't fault Crawford for the Knicks losing the last games of NBA Finals like with Starks 2-18 game 7 and Sprewell missing the final shot in game 5.
Doesn't matter. Those guys both got there. I'm still bitter about 1994 and the awful performance, but I put that on Riley too, who chose to keep drawing up plays for Starks after it was clear he couldn't throw a ball in the ocean that night.
was that a clean block by Hakeem end of Game 6?
This is OG's desperate cry for credible status on this site.
I encourage people to post and speak freely but this is a wasteful attempt with a WEAK following.
First of all, banner boy, hop off, I don't swing that way.
I'm already well respected, by a number of members: in only a few months, ABCD gave me a rep., along with Pat, Donchris and Originalknickgrandson. All were given to me because of posts I made. You, on the other hand, get rep points for giving people banners.
Now, about what I claim in the thread, folks, it's legit, if you actually know how to study players, and their impact, well. Sprewell, contrary to what someone mentioned, was not a good three point shooter, and he certainly could not take over from three, or any other place on the court, with any sort of consistency. He jacked up a lot of shots, over 40 minutes, and, by the end, he'd end up with 16 or 17 points.
As for the 99 playoffs, the reason we got there was not because of any one player, it was because of different players coming up with big plays. It was also because of Ewing's play in the first round. If you remember, he hit three consecutive buckets, against Zo, before Houston hit the legendary game-winning runner, to eliminate the heat. After that Ewing dominated the Hawks and, in the next round, was killing the Pacers, until he was yanked by the leg, causing his wrist injury. Still, he gave us that first game and LJ pulled off a miracle to get us to San Antonio. In San Antonio, we lost because Ewing was not able to play, and, instead, we had to rely on bum ass Camby.
John Starks was a good player, but he could not score in bunches, and with as much clutch, as Crawford does. He could hit big shots, but not back to back, like Crawford regularly does. I'm a huge Starks fan, don't really like Spre, though, but he's not as talented of a shooter or scorer as Crawford, neither is Spre.
If Spre and Starks hadn't played with Ewing, you wouldn't be talking about them today, because there would be no finals appearance, no playoffs, no great moments to assign to their careers. Evidence of that is seen in the knicks' performance, after the Trade of Ewing to the Sonics.
Crawford hasn't had a great big man to play with, or even a competent one, who can block shots and rebound. Had we traded Curry for Gasol, it would be different, but that didn't happen. It's all right, though, blame this one guy that people on here like to hate. The bottom line is that the truth is there, even if you don't, or can't, see it. Some of you are clearly blind, even after the last loss, against Dallas, someone on here blamed Crawford: ridiculous.
Last edited by OGKnickfan; Nov 18, 2008 at 15:12.
OG- I never said Spree was the catalyst, but it could be argued that he was, it isn't a ridiculous argument to make. I wouldn't make it but I'd listen to the argument for sure.
Starks is an NYK legend, even though I don't personally have an affinity for him. People on this board have argued for his # to be retired. If Crawford retired today, there's no shot in hell he gets his # retired.
2 guys on that list Crawford will never draw comparison to Starks,and Sprewell you could make arguments that they both should have their numbers retired although it likely wont happen...Crawford is one of the centerpieces of a horrile era in knicks history 8 staright losing records(although he wasnt here for all of them)...he has never been in the playoffs ever in his life,unlike Starks who played on elite knick teams that made the finals,and Sprewell who also went to the finals and played well in the playoffs over and over...
DaTPRiNCE...That EGYPTiAN Fella, #MeloMafia