Crawford Supporters

After Houston, who is the greatest Knick SG of the contemporary Knick era?

  • John Starks

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • Mardy Collins (for Tuner)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jamal Crawford

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Latrell Sprewell

    Votes: 12 48.0%

  • Total voters
    25

MSGKnickz33

The Gold Mac
i dont consider sprewell to be a shooting guard, although he should have been. John Starks was a very good defender. He was easily a better player then crawford is. I cant even read OG's post and take it seriously, i tried skimmin through it but even that didnt work. The iq of the average poster on this site has really dropped with all these new members.
 

Kiyaman

Legend
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.


Each person that gave you a REP..... has taken points from you for this CRAWFUL Thread..... and then you made a POLL with Starks & Spree....and Crawful. Hell No.....You didnt!

Crawful average 30 minutes of playingtime his entire career as a Knick.....and thats when the Knicks stop making the playoffs.... in a Conference which it ony takes winning above 35 games to be in the Postseason.

Crawful was always 1, 2, or the 3rd option on offense since he became a Knick...
 

Crazy⑧s

Evacuee
He has talent! I enjoy watching him for sure. He really is just too inconsistent. It's not often any player has a break out 55 on a team like Crawf against Miami where he made Wade look rather silly. That is by far his best game. But it leaves everyone a tad confused. Why doesn't it happen more often.?
He just can't contribute consistently. The start of the season has been good, but history has proven that he can't maintain. Still, he's one of our 2 most entertaining players and he's all about the orange and blue so he gets my vote! He's never done anything to embarrass the Knicks either like mad Stephony.

He deserves more than h8 I say
 

MSGKnickz33

The Gold Mac
I enjoy suckin dikk :thumbsup:

dry.gif
 

jimkcchief88

All Star
I don't know about the poll, probably Spree, but Crawford has such a bad rap on this site and I just don't get it. Like I said before this site is the basketball bizarro world, where everything is just upside down. Starbury gets the most love for being the poster child of selfish, overpaid, athelete and Jamal gets hated on for showing up to the gym everyday. Refer to the "Official Jamal Crawford Sucks" thread to see the stats for and against Jamal. Everyone throws up shot selection as Jamal's main weakness, but who cares??? Every scorer from the guard position has bad shot selection. What I mean is a bad shot is a good shot if you make it. Watch Kobe sometime. 80% of his shots are "bad shots." But when he is on he drops 50 and wins rings and MVP's. True enough Jamal has never played with a good big man. Even more important, Jamal has never had consistent coaching. One year at Michigan, a couple years with the Bulls under different coaches and a couple of years with the Knicks with different coaches. Jamal has probably had 5 different coaches in a 7-8 year period. That makes a difference. How do you develop offensive consistency with all those different coaches, philosophies and systems??? To Jamal's credit he remains coachable and continues to improve his game. I root for Jamal everytime he steps on the floor. A because he's a Knick and B because he is entertaining to watch. Jamal slips between the 1 and the 2 with ease and when he is on its a thing of beauty. True scorers sometimes try to shoot themselves hot and this is what Jamal has been guilty of. To Jamal's credit this year he is allowing the game to come to him.
 

Akamu

The King
Your IQ must be real high to practice football during a basketball game.


Crawful and Zach, quarterback sneak
 
Last edited:

feetoe

Benchwarmer
but Starks IS the reason we didn't win in 94.

no he wasn't and the reason why the Knicks even got to the Finals was because of Hue Hollins. They couldn't even beat Chicago without Jordan if it wasn't for that phantom foul on Pippen.
 

Starks

Starter
Starks really wasn't the best... He was inconsistent and couldn't win a playoff game. Starks and Crawful are very very similar... (altough Starks is better) People will hate me for this... but Starks IS the reason we didn't win in 94. Sprewell (as much of sg he played) doesn't belong in this discussion.. Sprewell was way too good to be in this list. Starks was good, but not the sg Ewing needed. LMAO at someone voting Crawford

Please explain to us why Starks is the sole reason why we didn't win in 94. You can't say soem dumb shit like that.

Any basketball fan knows that you don't pinpoint an entire season on one player. If you say soemthing like that, don't get upset when people blame Marbury for the past few losing seasons.

Without Starks the Knicks don't make the playoffs in 94. How old are you?
 

KBlack25

Starter
Please explain to us why Starks is the sole reason why we didn't win in 94. You can't say soem dumb shit like that.

Any basketball fan knows that you don't pinpoint an entire season on one player. If you say soemthing like that, don't get upset when people blame Marbury for the past few losing seasons.

Without Starks the Knicks don't make the playoffs in 94. How old are you?

Starks shot 2 for 18 or something ridiculous in game 7 of the finals, had he shot even 40% from the field they would have stood a chance at winning it all. But it's also on Riley, who kept Starks in the game, kept drawing up plays for him and then bounced the next season for Miami.
 

Starks

Starter
Starks shot 2 for 18 or something ridiculous in game 7 of the finals, had he shot even 40% from the field they would have stood a chance at winning it all. But it's also on Riley, who kept Starks in the game, kept drawing up plays for him and then bounced the next season for Miami.

who else had a good game that day? Everyone was off. And if you recall game 6, Starks had the best game between both teams. He was even being double teamed by Hakeem and Maxwell and still dropped over 30. No one did a damn thing game 7. Yea he had a bad game, but there is no way in hell Starks gets blamed for not winning a championship.
 

pat

Starter
who else had a good game that day? Everyone was off. And if you recall game 6, Starks had the best game between both teams. He was even being double teamed by Hakeem and Maxwell and still dropped over 30. No one did a damn thing game 7. Yea he had a bad game, but there is no way in hell Starks gets blamed for not winning a championship.

I can still remember watching the finals when I was 13. I really couldn't believe that he didn't stop shooting and that Riley didn't take him out of the game. On the other hand he was the archetypal streaky shooter and him getting the hot hand was the only way they could have created proper spacing. I guess they had to try it and hope for the best. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.
 

JRG3

Benchwarmer
Crawford deserves more credit...hes not the best but atleast he isnt a HEAD CASE...ah Hem....Mr.Marbury....
 

DaTPRiNCE

The Knicks are Back
im not getting into this whole Marbury thing again...but check Crawfords shooting percentage he's shooting 43% from the field overall,but his 3-point% is good ill give him that but he;s not as good as you may think, no matter how well he plays,scores etc he's never been a team guy and he takes the most retarded shots..very poor shot selection.
 

JRG3

Benchwarmer
im not getting into this whole Marbury thing again...but check Crawfords shooting percentage he's shooting 43% from the field overall,but his 3-point% is good ill give him that but he;s not as good as you may think, no matter how well he plays,scores etc he's never been a team guy and he takes the most retarded shots..very poor shot selection.

Im not saying Crawfords amazing i just give him credit because he hasnt caused problems and is coachable and is easy to support.
 
Crawford has more ability than any 2 in the list. Purely based off talent, he should be head and shoulders better than the rest. But he is not the headiest player alive.

A man with his ball handling ability should live at the ft line. But that would require going to the hole hard, and efficiently. Instead, he normally like to use his handle to set him up at the ft line for a 15 footer, which he makes a fair amount of. But when he is off, you would think the light would go on and tell him to go to the rack. Maybe he's scared to. Hates contact. Who knows. I'm tired of trying to figure out what's wrong with him. He should be very good. But he chooses to hold himself back by not thinking on the court. And sadly, if he never gets it, he'll only have himself to blame for being an underachiever.

If he had half the heart of Starks or Sprewell, he'd avg 25 a game, with 2 steals, and a floor burn once a week.

They had so much heart, you could mistake it for titty. Crawford, not so much.
 
Top