Are the Knicks better WITHOUT Gallo?

[skisloper]

I think the bottom line is Chandler has shown significant improvement since last season while Gallo has at best remained the same (possibly reaching his ceiling). Fans realize that and while i'm no Gallo hater, I strongly believe he would be more valuable to us coming off the bench and providing that spot shooting with the second unit.

We're all true knicks fans and it shows by our passion. It's stupid to totally hate Gallo. He's home grown and talented BUT it was the organization who made him out to be the future and face of the team and it was Dantoni who made that rediculous "best shooter i've ever seen" comment just to hype him up. Plain and simple he was over-hyped and now that we see he's just a solid role player it makes it seem like he's sub par.

I could not disagree with you more....

As we all know Chandler is a tough read . His lack of emotion is almost mind boggling........but no doubt he is playing as good as basketball as he has played...although on a few defensive plays last night he almost stepped out of the way and looked lost...

Gallo is really only in his second year as his first year had all the back issues. The guy is so much better then last year and is now first starting to drive to the hoop and create foul shots. His defense is only getting better as u saw against Durant. With guys like Stat and Felton other players like Gallo, Chandler, Douglas and Fields will only get better....

For the record I would trade any play except Stat for Melo.

[nyk_nyk]

Gallo is really only in his second year as his first year had all the back issues.

Here we go again...

[Red]

For those of you who fail at reading comprehension, do not read posts and just reply, or just fail at watching basketball games:

Wilson Chandler played PF most of the time last night.

Yet, more people will post, "Its awesome seeing Chandler play his natural SF position again!"

Wilson Chandler played PF most of the time last night.

I am not sure how many more times this needs to be repeated.

Now the next point. Conventional line-up?

Chandler played the 5 at one point in the game, WHAT conventional line-up? We were small ball just like every game. Oh btw:

Wilson Chandler played PF most of the time last night.

The thing we did different then other games was we ran less P&R in the 1 quarter and went with elbow plays featuring Amare. Other then that, same old same old. We still chucked 27 threes (this is not a complaint its the system we run) and we ran the other team into the floor.

So guess what, Chandler STILL played outside of his "natural posistion."

Chandler Started @ SF last night. At the end of the quarters, when the starting line up was reinserted... he played SF.

Chandler's natural position is SF.

Where he winds up playing during the course of the game, due to various circumstance is irrelevant except that it accentuates his ability to play other positions because he is versitile.

He is not a natural 4. Do you understand that? No matter where he plays throught the course, he's NOT a power forward. Get it.

Gallo started at the four, due to injury and circumstance. MDA doesn't mind going small as do many other coaches. That doesn't change his position, a SF.

Bringing up Walker or Williams to point out how MDA went small is another moot point. Again,does a coach choose to start his 2nd tier players, or does a coach start the best he has? Its the latter, and when its crunch time, and if circumstance permits (not in foul trouble) the starters will take presidence, so please stop trying to point out the rotations as some sort of evidence.

Same old same old... really?
We normally have 6 to's per game?
We normally blow out and make the top teams quit? Really?

We normally have 3 players almost hit 30? Nope that hasn't happened in over 2 decades. Something was different.

Conventional line up? Yes our players RARELY have a chance to play their natural positons, whether by design or circumstance...

And again something was different.

Due to his size, we are forced to play Gallo at either the 2,3, or 4.

In my opinion, we have better options at the 2,3, and4. Which means we might experience a drop with him. That's not bad but it might lead to a different use of him or a change in his value.

You ask a question if the team plays better with a player and m*ther****ers skirts start showing.

[nyk_nyk]

Chandler Started @ SF last night. At the end of the quarters, when the starting line up was reinserted... he played SF.

Chandler's natural position is SF.

Where he winds up playing during the course of the game, due to various circumstance is irrelevant except that it accentuates his ability to play other positions because he is versitile.

He is not a natural 4. Do you understand that? No matter where he plays throught the course, he's NOT a power forward. Get it.

Gallo started at the four, due to injury and circumstance. MDA doesn't mind going small as do many other coaches. That doesn't change his position, a SF.

Bringing up Walker or Williams to point out how MDA went small is another moot point. Again,does a coach choose to start his 2nd tier players, or does a coach start the best he has? Its the latter, and when its crunch time, and if circumstance permits (not in foul trouble) the starters will take presidence, so please stop trying to point out the rotations as some sort of evidence.

Same old same old... really?
We normally have 6 to's per game?
We normally blow out and make the top teams quit? Really?

We normally have 3 players almost hit 30? Nope that hasn't happened in over 2 decades. Something was different.

Conventional line up? Yes our players RARELY have a chance to play their natural positons, whether by design or circumstance...

And again something was different.

Due to his size, we are forced to play Gallo at either the 2,3, or 4.

In my opinion, we have better options at the 2,3, and4. Which means we might experience a drop with him. That's not bad but it might lead to a different use of him or a change in his value.

You ask a question if the team plays better with a player and m*ther****ers skirts start showing.

Agreed 100%

[Red]

Read the posts in this thread dude, including yours. You even ask, would you rather have Chandler or Gallo. It is you who is making this a Chandler vs Gallo thing, not me. Not one bit. The whole premise of this thread (and all of your threads) is "girly".

Yes, Chandler is currently playing better than Gallo. No question. Does anybody remember how inconsistent Chandler has been his entire career up until recently?

We have other assets that can get us a big. I personally like both and want to keep both and ADD to the current roster. Why do you want to get rid of Gallo so early in his career?

If you can propose a legitimate trade for Gallo that will get us the soild big that will take us to contending level, then by all means, I am willing to listen. But we all know that isn't your motivation here.

I can propose trading Chandler (his value is much higher than Gallo's) that will make this team better too. And Chandler can get us a much higher quality big in a trade than Gallo. And since this apparently isn't about Gallo vs Chandler and only about getting a quality center and playing a more traditional lineup, then why not propose that trade?

Who's better Chandler or Gallo? I, you, we, the world, the NBA, everyone and their mother knows Chandler is better, why would I ask this.

"Who would you rather keep if you had to choose" means take everything int account
Contract
Ability
Versitility
Team needs
Philosophy/ strategy
Projection

Whatever into account then make a choice. I could ask the same when it comes to 2 arbitrary players to resign. These two happen to play the same position, but it could easily be the same for Douglas or Turiaf. If you had to choose one to keep who would it be?

To reiterate, I'm assuming someone has to be used for a trade. I'm assuming we can be better with an upgrade. I also assume we can't keep everyone, so I asked who would you rather keep, not who is better, I already know that.

That came on the heels of the topic are we better w/o Gallo? Some say yes some say no. But most figured how we play was the crux not if he should be traded which is a different topic.

We all know you and some more love or like Gallo. We already know why you love him so. Until last night and for a few what we won't know is given our new improved line up, have we progressed to the point where he isn't as important.

Is he expendable? Can we be better without him? See that's a question and its valid.

Gallo is garbage... that would be an example of "hate". There is a difference. If you defend Gallo, maybe you or others could say, no we need his shooting, or no we need him for trade bait whatever, but to defend him as if he where dissed or offended b/c I even asked looks funny.

Do you love him or see his value and place on our team? Is it the bench, as a starter, etc...

[LJ4ptplay]

Who's better Chandler or Gallo? I, you, we, the world, the NBA, everyone and their mother knows Chandler is better, why would I ask this.

"Who would you rather keep if you had to choose" means take everything int account
Contract
Ability
Versitility
Team needs
Philosophy/ strategy
Projection

Whatever into account then make a choice. I could ask the same when it comes to 2 arbitrary players to resign. These two happen to play the same position, but it could easily be the same for Douglas or Turiaf. If you had to choose one to keep who would it be?

To reiterate, I'm assuming someone has to be used for a trade. I'm assuming we can be better with an upgrade. I also assume we can't keep everyone, so I asked who would you rather keep, not who is better, I already know that.

That came on the heels of the topic are we better w/o Gallo? Some say yes some say no. But most figured how we play was the crux not if he should be traded which is a different topic.

We all know you and some more love or like Gallo. We already know why you love him so. Until last night and for a few what we won't know is given our new improved line up, have we progressed to the point where he isn't as important.

Is he expendable? Can we be better without him? See that's a question and its valid.

Gallo is garbage... that would be an example of "hate". There is a difference. If you defend Gallo, maybe you or others could say, no we need his shooting, or no we need him for trade bait whatever, but to defend him as if he where dissed or offended b/c I even asked looks funny.

Do you love him or see his value and place on our team? Is it the bench, as a starter, etc...

You assume too much. And you didn't start this thread with the intent of evaluation over the next 2-3 weeks while Gallo is out. Or at least it wasn't overly clear, if that was your intention. Particularly since you started the thread by saying "and now that I see us without him". After only 1 game kind of makes it look like you have zero intention of fair evaluation.

If we dominate they way we did last night with Chandler playing SF for the majority (or at least the most important) of the games in the next 2-3 weeks, as well as Amare at PF and Turaif at C, then yes, evaluating Gallo's overall need for this team is a legitimate question.

If not though, somehow I doubt the Gallo/D'Antoni haters will ever acknowledge his value to this team. Did you notice that the pick-and-roll was almost non-existant? But some people just hate and enjoy being negative about the Knicks, and for the life of me, I can't understand why so much of it is directed towards Gallo. It seems rather unfair, to me.

[Blas]

You assume too much. And you didn't start this thread with the intent of evaluation over the next 2-3 weeks while Gallo is out. Or at least it wasn't overly clear, if that was your intention. Particularly since you started the thread by saying "and now that I see us without him". After only 1 game kind of makes it look like you have zero intention of fair evaluation.

If we dominate they way we did last night with Chandler playing SF for the majority (or at least the most important) of the games in the next 2-3 weeks, as well as Amare at PF and Turaif at C, then yes, evaluating Gallo's overall need for this team is a legitimate question.

If not though, somehow I doubt the Gallo/D'Antoni haters will ever acknowledge his value to this team. Did you notice that the pick-and-roll was almost non-existant? But some people just hate and enjoy being negative about the Knicks, and for the life of me, I can't understand why so much of it is directed towards Gallo. It seems rather unfair, to me.

LJ this thread was made with most purest and honest intentions regardless of the OP's MO or his very first post of this thread.

This game proves that without Gallo we can beat the most elite teams, so his value means negative, he makes us worse. See last nights score for proof of this statement.

Chandler plays SF, it is what he plays SF not PF, he only plays PF because D'antoni doesn't know how to coach and does not realize Chandler is a SF and not a PF, but he plays SF. Last night he played SF for some minutes that is why we won. If we had Gallo then Chandler would never have played SF last night, because Chandler never plays SF when Gallo is in the line-up. Because of this we beat the Spurs.

Gallo needs to die!

[OGKnickfan]

Bottom line: Chandler's kicking butt. I put the past in the past and became a Gallo supporter, because he's a Knick, period. However, as things are, if Melo is on the trading block, I'm sending Gallo to the Nuggs before I give up Chandler.

And if the Nuggs insist on Chandler, as I would, if I were their GM, we have to give up the Thrill. A Melo and STAT duo makes us a real championship contender.

Just my 2 cents.

[ronoranina]

I'm sorry but Red your becoming notorious for jumping the gun.

You did it with that nonsensical "the verdict is in" thread and now you're doing it again.

It's been one game. ONE GAME.

Maybe we would be better off with Gallo coming off the bench, but i'm not ready to say that after seeing us play one time w out him.

And yes, Chandler is obviously better,right now.

Gallo will continue to grow. He will round out his game and become more comfortable w what he can do. He's still very young and he doesn't have as much experience as Chandler.

The haterz need to settle down and give him more time. Gallo has a deep talent base and a good mind. He has a lot to work w.

[Blas]

I'm sorry but Red your becoming notorious for jumping the gun.

You did it with that nonsensical "the verdict is in" thread and now you're doing it again.

It's been one game. ONE GAME.

Maybe we would be better off with Gallo coming the bench, but i'm not ready to say that after seeing us play one time w out him.

And yes, Chandler is obviously better,right now.

Gallo will continue to grow. He will round out his game and become more comfortable w what he can do. He's still very young and he doesn't have as much experience as Chandler.

The haterz need to settle down and give him more time. Gallo has a deep talent base and a good mind. He has a lot to work w.

+1 Some sensibility!

[legend33]

gallo is overrated, and so is his fkn "so - called talent base"

ive been watching ball for years, he's not even a schrempf or tom chambers...

and hes not even THAT efficient a shooter... what he is is a skinny pf who can't rebound well for his size...

he's not a sniper, nor is he a "pf"....

he's a hot/cold type of scorer...

[Red]

You assume too much. And you didn't start this thread with the intent of evaluation over the next 2-3 weeks while Gallo is out. Or at least it wasn't overly clear, if that was your intention. Particularly since you started the thread by saying "and now that I see us without him". After only 1 game kind of makes it look like you have zero intention of fair evaluation.

If we dominate they way we did last night with Chandler playing SF for the majority (or at least the most important) of the games in the next 2-3 weeks, as well as Amare at PF and Turaif at C, then yes, evaluating Gallo's overall need for this team is a legitimate question.

If not though, somehow I doubt the Gallo/D'Antoni haters will ever acknowledge his value to this team. Did you notice that the pick-and-roll was almost non-existant? But some people just hate and enjoy being negative about the Knicks, and for the life of me, I can't understand why so much of it is directed towards Gallo. It seems rather unfair, to me.

I assume because I don't know, but damn aren't some assumptions valid?
And yes, thats exactly why I started this thread...
1. to guage opinions before we see our next stretch of games
2. to have a discussion and keep us busy until we whup up on some other teams

my bad if that wasn't clear, along with "without Gallo" (in the line-up), not should we trade or get rid of Gallo.. or Gallo is whack. As a regular you should know mine and everyones stance on that because we have threads discussing that. I label Gallo as "sloppy but effective".

Gallo is targeted (as at one point probably everyone was/is) because of the hype that preceded him and because of his involvement with coach.

When you evaluate (using this info that others mention) you have to ask what's really fair and what's the motives like...

Is or does coach play favorites maybe because the player is his godson?
Were other players given the same opportunities to fail or was the leash a bit longer?
Would Gallo have even been drafted or drafted so high if he didnt have an association with coach?

another is.. although he has progressed, although he scores 15ppg, and everything if we swap his offensive production for more defense can we still compete at the same level?

What motivated me was the pre-game article I read and posted in the game thread comparing us with and without him

Those numbers they compiled and conclusion was based on a different version of our team (like maybe we weren't gelling yet, or maybe before Chandler stepped his game up, or Ray and Stat clicking, etc...) so it made me think knowing what we geniuses here at KOL know, will those numbers hold true or can we offer different theories.

I theorized that we basically peeked offensively with him. And you know i love defense too, so i felt we could use less shooters and more defenders. I hoped MDA could add this to his repertoire by seeing what a difference it makes. so i envisioned...

we would..
obviously defend better, and hold teams to lower scores
be less turnover prone and efficient
move the ball better
not rely so much on jumpers
find different ways to win games
compete better against the elite
better rebounding
find a more suitable role for Gallo like maybe off the bench

etc.. etc... I just saw mad positives (not to mention the trade scenarios)
but also felt this could be an opportunity to explore things that we couldn't otherwise.

I mentioned Tiki Barber. He was the whole Giants offense at a time. He was their best player and no doubt one of the best in the league. He definitely was their leader.
But once they didn't re-sign him everyone was going crazy. No one knew what to expect.

The very next year the GMen won the SB against an UNDEFEATED team. Who would've thunk it?

My point is that sometimes its addition by subtraction. Sometimes when you use tunnel vision and go so hard to make someone what you want them to be and support, love and project them so much, you can lose sight of the possibilities...

See: David Lee replaced by STAT.

There's so much I feel we can do, and so much we might be missing that I relish an opportunity like this that allows us to evaluate, make changes, use other assets and potentially improve (or we could potentially learn he is indispensable)

Lastly, (not sure if you like baseball or football), the Yankees payed mad $ trying to fill the hole at 2nd base (a few yrs back). They made trades, free agents etc... only to bring up a rookie after an injury.

This rookie was Robinson Cano, one of the best to do it. He was right there in the farms and Cashmen overlooked him time and again. Remind you of anything. I just like keeping an open mind and analyzing/projecting. My bad for the long post.

[Red]

I'm sorry but Red your becoming notorious for jumping the gun.

You did it with that nonsensical "the verdict is in" thread and now you're doing it again.

It's been one game. ONE GAME.



And yes, Chandler is obviously better,right now.



and give him more time. Gallo has a deep talent base and a good mind. He has a lot to work w.

Maybe we would be better off with Gallo coming off the bench, but i'm not ready to say that after seeing us play one time w out him.

thanks for your opinion.
Have you not seen 34 games with Gallo in and out of the line up? You can't come to a conclusion based on that, and your knowledge of the game? Thats cool.

I theorize we are better for multiple reasons, and Gallos role can and should be tweaked. Jumping the gun, or stating an opinion you don't agree with, make the call.

Gallo will continue to grow. He will round out his game and become more comfortable w what he can do. He's still very young and he doesn't have as much experience as Chandler.

Thanks again. Chandler will continue to grow. He will round out his game and become more comfortable w what he can do. He's still very young (23) and he has more experience than Gallo. Hello?

and.. there is no need to compare these two, there's no comparison.

The haterz need to settle down

all i can say is pots & kettles.

Back on topic... reiterated:

Can we be better by starting a center like Turriaf instead of Gallo?

[MBlackVJesusP7]

We always hate Red for making these threads, yet they always get a gagillion replies and are an interesting read so I'm not complaining lol.

Still it is fascinating to see some of the dislike for Gallo.

[skisloper]

Its like he is almost Gallophobic.

So if we lose our next four games is it because we do not have Gallo.

if we lost this game you would have said Anthony Randolph would have made the difference...

why not just appreciate all the knicks players and the playoff bound team we have after the many disasterous seasons in the past.

You may be know basketball but you resort to a 5 year olds argument that associated one with a finite conclusion.