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.
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.
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.
