View Poll Results: Were people wrong about these two?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 25.00%
  • No

    7 58.33%
  • Just Zach

    1 8.33%
  • Just Jamal

    1 8.33%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Crawford and Zach proving their KOL detractors wrong

  1. #1
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default Crawford and Zach proving their KOL detractors wrong

    For years, people who saw the good in two of our main scorers, Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph, were ridiculed on this site and others. Zach was supposed to be a "black hole," Jamal a "chucker."

    Clearly, both had flaws. Every player does, even the so-called greats. Because the Knicks were a losing club, both of these players' flaws were simply magnified, rather than being overlooked. They became scapegoats.

    The reality is that both Crawford and Randolph have, and had, heart. They both have clutch ability and are fearless, no matter the opponent. Crawford, in fact, is probably one of the most clutch players in the league. Randolph is a fighter. They're not perfect, but they can create their own shots and score in bunches.

    However, because the Knicks have spent almost a decade without a real center to help the Knicks beat teams on both ends, i.e., following the process of scoring the ball with a stop on the other, these players' efforts were all for naught. Crawford or Randolph would score, only to have the Knick "bigs" allow easy layups on the other end.

    Knowing this, I stated, if you recall, around the start of the Damn-phony era, that we should keep both of these guys, that all that they needed was a big man who could block shots and rebound, to provide defensive stability in the middle (the most important area to have good D). If we could have gotten a center with an offensive game, I felt it would have made us that much better: an elite playoff team.

    To that end, I suggested we draft Brook Lopez.

    People either ridiculed this suggestion or ignored it for their obsession with Gallinari.

    And what now?

    Crawford was recently being talked about, on NBATV, as someone that should have been an all-star (Webber said he deserved the honor ahead of Joe Johnson). He essentially has the sixth-man of the year trophy on lock; and his clutch will make the Hawks deadly in the playoffs, since Johnson is prone to choke. His team is now second in the East. They're well on their way to a huge improvement over their previous record.

    Zach is an all-star on a Memphis team that's rolling, after having been left off of the all-star ballot. I think that speaks for itself. Memphis has already doubled their previous season's win total. The only difference between that team and this one is Zach.

    The common denominator with both guys' success is they're both playing with competent centers: Al Horford (ATL) and Marc Gasol (MEM).

    Until we learn to support the good players that we already have, while getting rid of the nonredeemable, e.g., Curry, Duhon, Larry Hughes, etc., instead of playing the same failing lineups, which we then arbitrarily purge of all its members, even the decent ones, we will continue to stink.

    Crawford and Randolph have proven that.

  2. #2
    I got Soul StreetDreams21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vegas/NY
    Posts
    1,404
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    For years, people who saw the good in two of our main scorers, Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph, were ridiculed on this site and others. Zach was supposed to be a "black hole," Jamal a "chucker."

    Clearly, both had flaws. Every player does, even the so-called greats. Because the Knicks were a losing club, both of these players' flaws were simply magnified, rather than being overlooked. They became scapegoats.

    The reality is that both Crawford and Randolph have, and had, heart. They both have clutch ability and are fearless, no matter the opponent. Crawford, in fact, is probably one of the most clutch players in the league. Randolph is a fighter. They're not perfect, but they can create their own shots and score in bunches.

    However, because the Knicks have spent almost a decade without a real center to help the Knicks beat teams on both ends, i.e., following the process of scoring the ball with a stop on the other, these players' efforts were all for naught. Crawford or Randolph would score, only to have the Knick "bigs" allow easy layups on the other end.

    Knowing this, I stated, if you recall, around the start of the Damn-phony era, that we should keep both of these guys, that all that they needed was a big man who could block shots and rebound, to provide defensive stability in the middle (the most important area to have good D). If we could have gotten a center with an offensive game, I felt it would have made us that much better: an elite playoff team.

    To that end, I suggested we draft Brook Lopez.

    People either ridiculed this suggestion or ignored it for their obsession with Gallinari.

    And what now?

    Crawford was recently being talked about, on NBATV, as someone that should have been an all-star (Webber said he deserved the honor ahead of Joe Johnson). He essentially has the sixth-man of the year trophy on lock; and his clutch will make the Hawks deadly in the playoffs, since Johnson is prone to choke. His team is now second in the East. They're well on their way to a huge improvement over their previous record.

    Zach is an all-star on a Memphis team that's rolling, after having been left off of the all-star ballot. I think that speaks for itself. Memphis has already doubled their previous season's win total. The only difference between that team and this one is Zach.

    The common denominator with both guys' success is they're both playing with competent centers: Al Horford (ATL) and Marc Gasol (MEM).

    Until we learn to support the good players that we already have, while getting rid of the nonredeemable, e.g., Curry, Duhon, Larry Hughes, etc., instead of playing the same failing lineups, which we then arbitrarily purge of all its members, even the decent ones, we will continue to stink.

    Crawford and Randolph have proven that.
    You are right and wrong. Right because they did play with heart and were clutch (at least Crawford was). The difference is that they are both playing on stacked team. When they were here they were our first and second options. We weren't going to win with them as our best players.

    Crawford is a Sixth Man, and the third option, behind Joe Johnson, a surefire all star, and Josh Smith, who got snubbed. Crawford is very good as a third option, NOT a first, which he was while here.

    Zach Randolph is playing on an absolutely stacked team.

    Gasol
    Randolph
    Gay
    Mayo
    Conley

    With the exception of Conley, all those players are capable of giving you 20 points. And Zach is not the only difference, understand that they have a future superstar in Mayo and bright stars in Gasol and Gay. You're acting like they're the same players they were last year, and because Zach came in they're automatically better. With Zach they don't have to do as much, but understand they are young and will only continue to get better.


    You can say the same for Al Harrington. In the 06-07 Season when Golden State shocked Dirk and the Mavs, Harrington averaged 16 and 7 while shooting 45% and 41% from 3. Their team consisted of a high octane offense and he was the fourth option behind Davis, Ellis, and Jackson. People here hate him because he is inconsistent. If Harrington would be our third/fourth option, depending on how much Gallo steps his game up, he would be much more efficient. When you have guys ahead of you, it jacks up your efficiency.

    We would have won nothing with Crawford and Randolph as our one and two options. As our three and four, maybe so, but not while they are our only good players.

    Also, this thread kinda has been already done. I copied one my posts and added it here...
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Last edited by StreetDreams21; Jan 30, 2010 at 14:24.

  3. #3
    Member NYKnuniversity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Boston,MA
    Posts
    490
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Originally Posted by StreetDreams21
    You are right and wrong. Right because they did play with heart and were clutch (at least Crawford was). The difference is that they are both playing on stacked team. When they were here they were our first and second options. We weren't going to win with them as our best players.

    Crawford is a Sixth Man, and the third option, behind Joe Johnson, a surefire all star, and Josh Smith, who got snubbed. Crawford is very good as a third option, NOT a first, which he was while here.

    Zach Randolph is playing on an absolutely stacked team.

    Gasol
    Randolph
    Gay
    Mayo
    Conley

    With the exception of Conley, all those players are capable of giving you 20 points. And Zach is not the only difference, understand that they have a future superstar in Mayo and a bright stars in Gasol and Gay. You're acting like they're the same players they were last year, and because Zach came in they're automatically better. With Zach they don't have to do as much, but understant they are young and will only continue to get better.


    You can say the same for Al Harrington. In the 06-07 Season when Golden State shocked Dirk and the Mavs, Harrington averaged 16 and 7 while shooting 45% and 41% from 3. Their team consisted of a high octane offense and he was the fourth option behind Davis, Ellis, and Jackson. People here hate him because he is inconsistent. If Harrington would be our third/fourth option, depending on how much Gallo steps his game up, he would be much more efficient. When you have guys ahead of you, it jacks up your efficiency.

    We would have won nothing with Crawford and Randolph as our one and two options. As our three and four, maybe so, but not while they are our only good players.

    Also, this thread kinda has been already done. I copied one my posts and added it here...
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    I agree. I like Harrington also. I think he's a good option as a starting PF/SF in this league on a majority of teams in this league. I think he is a bit over chastised for his inefficiency when he has proven to be efficient at times.

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,047
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Nice thread. I don't know if you were a member of the board when Metro started his "official Jamal sucks" thread, but I went heads with our vocal majority about this very topic. I kind of took a different route because I wanted Marbury gone so badly that I thought we should have gotten a PG because I knew Steph was gone when D'ant got hired. At that point I was still hoping Eddy could rescue his career. But either way Lopez or any of the PG's availible would have been a better pick than Gallinari in my book.

    I watched the second half of the Hawks game last night and Jamal tore it up. Its funny to listen to real basketball people talk about Jamal's game rather than that "chucker" garbage that was spewed around here. I think Jamal had a season high last night in a season series sweep for the Hawks over the Celts.

    I am talking more about Jamal because I have always loved his game and heart and I haven't watched much of Memphis yet, but Zach is putting up all-star numbers as well.

    The bottomline is that you are right. We need to start appreciating our young talent and cultivating it instead of picking them apart and them trading them to conteders that allow them to emere(think Trevor Ariza). I am talking about David Lee and Wilson Chandler. David Lee finally emerged as an All-Star and I think Chandler is about a year away from doing the same. We need to keep that young core. Gallinari was a colossal mistake at 6th pick for a 7 foot, 3 point "specialist", but at this point we are stuck so maybe somebody can teach him a post move or two. If we would have drafted Lopez like you suggested than we wouldn't need to draft another interior presence this year(Hill). See when you miss on a draft choice, you still have the hole in the lineup you were suppose to address.

    This is a nice thread because the basketball IQ on KO.COM for the most part is way down. I still look back and laugh at threads like the "Do you trust Isiah/Steph or Larry Brown" thread when I joined. I was laughed off the board when I stated LB was a great coach, Steph was the problem. Now Steph is out of the league and LB is up for coach of the year with his expansion Bobcats. People on this board get so obsessed with the flavor of the month whether is Gallinari or Rubio or whoever that they miss the talent we have on the team. And when our talent like Jamal can't carry a bad team then its " they suck." No Jamal didn't suck, he was just put in a bad situation. Steph quit on the team that year so Jamal had to try to carry a bad team. Magic Johnson couldn't have carried that team. But when you disagree with our vocal majority here and drop a little knowledge, you are met with petty insults and such instead of any type of logic. Keep it up.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,047
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by StreetDreams21
    You are right and wrong. Right because they did play with heart and were clutch (at least Crawford was). The difference is that they are both playing on stacked team. When they were here they were our first and second options. We weren't going to win with them as our best players.

    Crawford is a Sixth Man, and the third option, behind Joe Johnson, a surefire all star, and Josh Smith, who got snubbed. Crawford is very good as a third option, NOT a first, which he was while here.

    Zach Randolph is playing on an absolutely stacked team.

    Gasol
    Randolph
    Gay
    Mayo
    Conley

    With the exception of Conley, all those players are capable of giving you 20 points. And Zach is not the only difference, understand that they have a future superstar in Mayo and bright stars in Gasol and Gay. You're acting like they're the same players they were last year, and because Zach came in they're automatically better. With Zach they don't have to do as much, but understand they are young and will only continue to get better.


    You can say the same for Al Harrington. In the 06-07 Season when Golden State shocked Dirk and the Mavs, Harrington averaged 16 and 7 while shooting 45% and 41% from 3. Their team consisted of a high octane offense and he was the fourth option behind Davis, Ellis, and Jackson. People here hate him because he is inconsistent. If Harrington would be our third/fourth option, depending on how much Gallo steps his game up, he would be much more efficient. When you have guys ahead of you, it jacks up your efficiency.

    We would have won nothing with Crawford and Randolph as our one and two options. As our three and four, maybe so, but not while they are our only good players.

    Also, this thread kinda has been already done. I copied one my posts and added it here...
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Yeah this well traveled ground but it bears repeating because it seems the Knicks haven't been learning from thier mistakes. Jamal is probably going to win 6th man of the year, while we were asking him to be our first option. But maybe we should have found some pieces to put around him. Same with Zach. All of that is Isiah's fault. Now we have Walsh. We have a budding all-star power forward in David Lee and future all-star slasher in Chandler. But it is up to Walsh to identify this core and put pieces around him. You can't just say "well we didn't win with them" and dump em' and start over. Franchises build champions. Even Jordan couldn't until he had help. But in the meantime you can't right off every player on your roster, because other team will be happy to rob you and make ya sorry.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,047
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by NYKnuniversity
    I agree. I like Harrington also. I think he's a good option as a starting PF/SF in this league on a majority of teams in this league. I think he is a bit over chastised for his inefficiency when he has proven to be efficient at times.
    I like Harrington as well. Its tough to chastise any player in our system for efficiency. We run a bulk of shots offense, not an efficient offense. So we I think the numbers are kinda skewed as such.

  7. #7
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by StreetDreams21
    You are right and wrong. Right because they did play with heart and were clutch (at least Crawford was). The difference is that they are both playing on stacked team. When they were here they were our first and second options. We weren't going to win with them as our best players.
    Zach is the only all-star selected from the Grizz and is considered their leader. Follow the links below, which will lead you to an article entitled "Young Memphis Grizzlies find leader in Zach Randolph" and another article where a Memphis sports writer goes back on the smack he talked about Zach,veven recommending MVP votes for ZBo. There are other articles, if you choose to do the research.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Particularly when it comes to the Grizz, your argument that they are "stacked" is weak. The Grizz won 24 games, in all, last season. They've already surpassed that, with 39 games to go. What did they add, of substantial value, in any way, besides Zach??? Answer: nothing. Mayo and Gay are putting up about the same numbers. They still have Marc, he's putting up slightly higher stats: 3 extra points, 2 more rebounds. The difference: Zach.

    And yes, I believe that now that they've added Zach, and only for that reason, they're better. Without Zach, I think they win 30 games, tops. You can't argue they're over .500, without Zach: their leading scorer.


    Originally Posted by StreetDreams21
    Crawford is a Sixth Man, and the third option, behind Joe Johnson, a surefire all star, and Josh Smith, who got snubbed. Crawford is very good as a third option, NOT a first, which he was while here.
    I'm assuming you, like me, define first and second scoring options according to the frequency of attempts these options take. Crawford takes more than Smith, whom you call the second option. He also makes more field goals.

    Crawford is obviously being looked for, by teammates, more often than Smith. Crawford also averages nearly 18 ppg (17.7) and regularly outscores Joe Johnson, while Smith averages 15 ppg. So you're wrong about Crawford being a third option, behind Smith.

    In fact, the only reason Craw comes off the bench is that JJ is already the Hawks' SG. And Bibby needs relief at the PG position, while SF is played by Marvin Williams. This combines to have Crawford play PG for Bibby, off the bench. Still Crawford gets starter-level minutes: 31 per game. He's not a true bench-player.

    This is Josh Smith's 09-10 line:

    <table class="playerStatTable careerAvg" border="1" bordercolor="#cccccc" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="odd"><td class="yr">09-10</td> <td class="tm">ATL</td> <td>45</td> <td>45</td> <td>1,509</td> <td>263-516</td> <td>0-3</td> <td>149-241</td> <td>116</td> <td>266</td> <td>382</td> <td>171</td> <td>68</td> <td>98</td> <td>98</td> <td>131</td> <td>675</td></tr></tbody></table>
    This is Jamal Crawford's 09-10 line:

    <table class="playerStatTable careerAvg" border="1" bordercolor="#cccccc" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class=""><td class="yr">09-10</td> <td class="tm">ATL</td> <td>45</td> <td>0</td> <td>1,383</td> <td>280-606</td> <td>82-222</td> <td>153-179</td> <td>20</td> <td>90</td> <td>110</td> <td>128</td> <td>36</td> <td>7</td> <td>77</td> <td>74</td> <td>795</td></tr></tbody></table>
    Jamal has taken over 180 more shots than Smith. He has made 17 more shots.

    In addition Crawford is 3 spaces higher than Joe Johnson, according to 82games.com, in clutch ability, which they define as scoring with five minutes in a game when the margin in the score is five points or less, for the 2008-2009 season.

    And, unlike the thread you posted a link to, I never said either of these men were options of any sort. I said, as Jim reiterated, that our management and fans will not improve the team, until they quit being cynical about the quality players we have and don't, instead, begin to remove our weaker players, while keeping our "redeemable" (a word I used in my initial post) players.

    As for Zach and Mal, if both are successful number one and two options on their team, as I've proven they are, with facts, then together, on the Knicks, with a real center, a proviso I included in my initial post, they would likely have brought us success.


    EDIT: Oh, and ATL is on the way to shatter last year's win total. The difference: Jamal. Actually, that's what his teammates have nicknamed him. Webber saw it, so much so that he said Jamal should be in over Johnson.
    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Jan 30, 2010 at 17:14.

  8. #8
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    I never hated on either and understood the reason they got traded was not because of a lack of talent...it was because:

    1. We were clearing cap space and thinking long term and knew we would not get comparable value back.
    2. The team did not have the right players around them to compliment their games.
    3. They both needed to dominate the ball in order to be effective so they worked against one another and are better on different teams.
    4.Because of the losing culture in NY and the lack of a strong leader these players never played to their full potential. They don't have the veteran leadership quility needed to be the 1st option.

  9. #9
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,486
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    For years, people who saw the good in two of our main scorers, Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph, were ridiculed on this site and others. Zach was supposed to be a "black hole," Jamal a "chucker."
    Who ****ing cares? Listen to this faggot whining about people that disagreed with him over a year ago. You're such a ****ing infant.

    David Lee > Zach Randolph

  10. #10
    Veteran ANU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,068
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    if it was just them that Isiah acquired then i'd understand.but Isiah brought in a bunch of **** that just didn't fit.so if dealing them is what took to get us capsace for 2010 and a shot at james, then their is no reason to complain.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,578
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by ANU
    if it was just them that Isiah acquired then i'd understand.but Isiah brought in a bunch of **** that just didn't fit.so if dealing them is what took to get us capsace for 2010 and a shot at james, then their is no reason to complain.
    This is what I wrote in 2008 when Zebo got traded. He's a good player and I think we would be a playoff team if he was still here but if your goal is to clear cap space for 2010 then he had to go because it looks like nobody wants Curry or Jeffries. We better sign James, Bosh or Wade or it's all for naught. As far as Jamal, SGs are a dime a dozen and he was making too much money so I don't have a problem with Walsh letting him go.

    Walsh f**cked up by trading Zebo in a salary dump. If the Knicks want LBJ here in 2010 we better be winning by then, Lebron is not going to a rebuilding team that can't win a ring. Gotta feel with Zebo and Harrington, the Knicks would have the nucleus of a playoff team for 2008 and 2009.

  12. #12
    Veteran jpz17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,782
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    They are both not good players with Mike D'Antoni

  13. #13
    Superstar th3realicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    573
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    There is difference between being a leader in a bad team and being one in a good one. So he is the leader of the 8th place Memphis? Big deal. Who cares he was let go based on the big picture. he was what i'd call a 2010 casualty. We need to have James or Wade or Bosh play for the Knicks instead of either Randolph or Crawford.
    We had them both did we ever win anything with them? No. Therefore any debate on if Donny made the right decision or not is lame.

  14. #14
    Sexy Stud knickzrulezH20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,781
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    I never hated on either and understood the reason they got traded was not because of a lack of talent...it was because:

    1. We were clearing cap space and thinking long term and knew we would not get comparable value back.
    2. The team did not have the right players around them to compliment their games.
    3. They both needed to dominate the ball in order to be effective so they worked against one another and are better on different teams.
    4.Because of the losing culture in NY and the lack of a strong leader these players never played to their full potential. They don't have the veteran leadership quility needed to be the 1st option.
    I agree with all your points Trillion. And Jamal and Zach would have never taken us anywhere in the positions we put them in. Crawford+Marbury never worked out, and Eddy+Zach was doomed from the start. Even if we did keep them, we would just be a one and done playoff team. Why the hell would we strive for that? Z-Bo has a HUGE contract, it basically kills our 2010 plan. I'm glad we got rid of both of them, but it is gratifying to see them both relish in their new oppurtunities. It's basically a win-win for the Knicks, Grizzlies and Hawks, in the end we all got what we needed. Hawks needed another go-to guy in the fourth quarter to compliment Johnson. The Grizz needed a big man to replace Pau, and we needed cap space. (Obv the Warriors and Clips didn't gain much lol).

  15. #15
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    962
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Good post, I agree 100% if this was a non salary cap era.

    Crawford is doing good because he is playing his true role on a good team. He's a 6th man who Knicks fan thought was a starter....Just not true...he's not a starter...he is still contributing to a bad perimeter defense....but ya i'll admit the guy can score. But he's no 10 mil a year player...If we keep Al Harrington for 7 i'll say we won out.

    Randolph is a great low post scorer. He's is a black hole...and still is but his flaws are overlooked because of Marc Gasol just like Sheed bailed him out in Portland for a 1 season or 2. I don't think Randolph is worth his contract too....

    Do you think you can be an elite team when 40%+ of your cap is given to these two?

    I would give Max or close to max for a Brooks Lopez...his game is WAY MORE DIFFICULT TO FIND. And while i don't hate Gallinari, Lopez would have been a better pick.

Similar Threads

  1. 2008 Draft Fantasy Game
    By metrocard in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 697
    Last Post: Jun 19, 2010, 20:30
  2. Replies: 55
    Last Post: Nov 20, 2008, 04:06
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jul 18, 2008, 15:52
  4. where's marbury?
    By reckoning in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Jun 25, 2008, 18:17
  5. Replies: 79
    Last Post: Jul 25, 2007, 22:38

Posting Permissions

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