"They're not Carmelo," Ewing said, laughing. "They're not Carmelo."

[eliteballer]

ORLANDO - Patrick Ewing included John Starks, Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell and Charles Oakley among the best sidekicks he had during his 15 seasons with the Knicks. All four helped Ewing reach the NBA Finals, all four became All-Stars and there is something else all four have in common.

"They're not Carmelo," Ewing said, laughing. "They're not Carmelo."

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-01/sports/28660568_1_stoudemire-and-anthony-knicks-allan-houston

Got me thinking. Ewing got very close to the title a couple of times in his career, despite never playing with another true star. How do you think the Knicks would have done if they had Dominique(another guy who never really had great teamates) instead of their starting SFs from 89-94?

[Patrick Chewing]

I don't know about 'Nique as I think he was already on the decline in the mid to late 90's, but even so, I think the Knicks would have beaten the Rockets in Game 7.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-01/sports/28660568_1_stoudemire-and-anthony-knicks-allan-houston

Got me thinking. Ewing got very close to the title a couple of times in his career, despite never playing with another true star. How do you think the Knicks would have done if they had Dominique(another guy who never really had great teamates) instead of their starting SFs from 89-94?

yeah people need to realize Ewing did it all pretty much on his own. Cant blame him for not having a ring. If i remember correctly Hakeem had Drexler, Robinson had Duncan etc.

[FF1]

yeah people need to realize Ewing did it all pretty much on his own. Cant blame him for not having a ring. If i remember correctly Hakeem had Drexler, Robinson had Duncan etc.

Dirk had....... Jason Terry

[ElPigto]

yeah people need to realize Ewing did it all pretty much on his own. Cant blame him for not having a ring. If i remember correctly Hakeem had Drexler, Robinson had Duncan etc.

Hakeem had role players the first year he won.

[Hammertime]

They had Nique's brother. That's something.

[DMV2]

Those 90's Knicks teams were twice better than the Amare/Melo Knicks, especially on the defensive end.

They even made it to the Finals when Ewing was injured for much of the 1999 season including the playoffs.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Spree was awesome in that lockout Finals run. Unfortunately Ewing was on the decline by then.

[millwad]

yeah people need to realize Ewing did it all pretty much on his own. Cant blame him for not having a ring. If i remember correctly Hakeem had Drexler, Robinson had Duncan etc.

Ewing definitely had better players by his side in '94, the fact that they lost the finals that year was mostly because of him. The only position where I honestly can give the advantage to Houston other than the center position is the PF position. Other than Otis Thorpe no one of Houston's players were better than their opponent on the same position. Hakeem outplayed Ewing and Ewing averaged low FG% through the through the finals, he got himself to blame, at least in '94.

[Inception28]

This reminds me of a few years ago when Tmac was talking about he would have been winning if he was with the Celtics instead of Paul Pierce or how he would have won if he had played with Duncan or Shaq. I guess Ewing's comments are more justifiable since he did it when his career was over while Tmac made his comments when he was playing.

[Da_Realist]

Too much is being made of who has the best "sidekick". A collection of B teammates is better than one B+ teammate and a bunch of scrubs.

I'd take the 92 or 93 Knicks over Ewing/Melo and filler.

Defense and effort. Two things Melo is criticized for. Ewing had his chances with some good teams, he just lost.

[NugzHeat3]

Too much is being made of who has the best "sidekick". A collection of B teammates is better than one B+ teammate and a bunch of scrubs.

I'd take the 92 or 93 Knicks over Ewing/Melo and filler.
I don't know about that. Depends on who the fillers are to be honest.

But I agree if you're hinting at his support being underrated. They are probably the most stacked defensive team I've seen. I think they may have done better if they were more balanced.

[DMAVS41]

Too much is being made of who has the best "sidekick". A collection of B teammates is better than one B+ teammate and a bunch of scrubs.

I'd take the 92 or 93 Knicks over Ewing/Melo and filler.

Defense and effort. Two things Melo is criticized for. Ewing had his chances with some good teams, he just lost.

both are really important. i'd rather have a solidified top 2 though. almost every team in history that has won a title has had 2 all nba players or at least 2 top 10 or 20 players.

i think you can find the filler over time. really hard to find that 1/2 punch.

just look at what has won lately:

jordan/pippen (rodman/grant as well)
shaq/kobe
robinson/duncan
duncan/manu/parker
wade/shaq
kg/allen/pierce
kobe/gasol/odom

going back further....

thomas/dumars...and very deep team
magic/worthy/kareem
bird/mchale/parish
moses/dr. j/toney

you almost always need two top players to win. hell, a lot of those teams have 3.

duncan did it somewhat by himself in 03. same with hakeem in 94. the pistons didn't really have a superstar so that doesn't fit this debate. dirk didn't have an elite 2nd option, but he had so many players step up and play like one at times. the mavs were also absurdly deep as well.

but you want to win titles? get two all nba players on the same team. that is what it takes.

[Da_Realist]

I don't know about that. Depends on who the fillers are to be honest.

But I agree if you're hinting at his support being underrated. They are probably the most stacked defensive team I've seen. I think they may have done better if they were more balanced.

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Thorpe, Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.

Same thing with the early 00's Lakers. They don't win without Fox and Harper shutting down the perimeter or Horry and Fisher hitting clutch shots. Now they're considered "scrubs" that Shaq and Kobe carried to the title.

Ewing's Knicks were good. They were title contenders from 92 - 95 and again in 97. Was within one shot of winning it all in 94. Ewing had his chances...they just lost to better teams. If they had brought in an offensive guy like Melo, they would have lost some of the defense and effort that made them so good in the first place.

Were they imbalanced? Yes. But I think that was because they were built specifically to beat Chicago. They loaded up on bruising power forwards and defensive specialists to win the battle of the boards, push Chicago to the breaking point and maybe win that way. They knew they weren't going to outscore Chicago so why try? I always wondered what would have happened if they made it to the Finals in 93. They would have beaten the Bulls to get there but were all wrong for a team like the Suns. I think they would have lost to Phoenix because they didn't match up too well with them. That defense would have been spread out too thin.

[DMV2]

I lost a bit of respect for Ewing for throwing his former teammates under the bus like that. They made to the Finals with him and made it to there without him.

I hate "legends" who make excuses for things they didn't accomplish during their playing days. Just accept that there was/were other players/teams that were better than you.

Barkley wouldn't say this to Johnson or Majerle. Neither would Malone.

[DMAVS41]

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Thorpe, Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.

Same thing with the early 00's Lakers. They don't win without Fox and Harper shutting down the perimeter or Horry and Fisher hitting clutch shots. Now they're considered "scrubs" that Shaq and Kobe carried to the title.

Ewing's Knicks were good. They were title contenders from 92 - 95 and again in 97. Was within one shot of winning it all in 94. Ewing had his chances...they just lost to better teams. If they had brought in an offensive guy like Melo, they would have lost some of the defense and effort that made them so good in the first place.

Were they imbalanced? Yes. But I think that was because they were built specifically to beat Chicago. They loaded up on bruising power forwards and defensive specialists to win the battle of the boards, push Chicago to the breaking point and maybe win that way. They knew they weren't going to outscore Chicago so why try? I always wondered what would have happened if they made it to the Finals in 93. They would have beaten the Bulls to get there but were all wrong for a team like the Suns. I think they would have lost to Phoenix because they didn't match up too well with them. That defense would have been spread out too thin.


Well said. I totally agree. Everything matters....not just the top 2 or 3 guys.

But if you made me choose between having a for sure elite top 2 or 3 and only an elite 1 with better filler. I'd choose the elite 2 or 3 pretty much every time.

[millwad]

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Thorpe, Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.


Not really, the '94 Rocket team was a product of Hakeem. They were normal role players, in fact if you look at every series the Rockets played during their back-to-backs they were often weaker at almost every position minus the center one.

Otis is one of my favorite player of all-time but he was not the typical 2nd best player on a title winning team and he had a couple of match-ups against easily better players during the '94 runs like against Malone and Barkley.

Elie was a bench player, the guy could shoot the open 3 and play hard nosed defense but I can't recall a worse starter than him at his position on a title winning team.

Kenny got abused through the whole '94-'95 playoffs, he got outplayed in every single match-up.

And the Rockets without Hakeem from '92-'96 won 7 games and lost 27 games which makes them a .25 % team without Hakeem. Lets not overrate them.

But other than that particular Rocket team I agree with the points you made.

[Da_Realist]

Not really, the '94 Rocket team was a product of Hakeem. They were normal role players, in fact if you look at every series the Rockets played during their back-to-backs they were often weaker at almost every position minus the center one.

Otis is one of my favorite player of all-time but he was not the typical 2nd best player on a title winning team and he had a couple of match-ups against easily better players during the '94 runs like against Malone and Barkley.

Elie was a bench player, the guy could shoot the open 3 and play hard nosed defense but I can't recall a worse starter than him at his position on a title winning team.

Kenny got abused through the whole '94-'95 playoffs, he got outplayed in every single match-up.

And the Rockets without Hakeem from '92-'96 won 7 games and lost 27 games which makes them a .25 % team without Hakeem. Lets not overrate them.

But other than that particular Rocket team I agree with the points you made.

Not taking anything away from Hakeem but I'm not sure the 95 Rockets with Drexler is any better than the 94 Rockets without him. It's certainly not a no-brainer. Drexler as a number 2 >>>>>>> whoever was #2 in 94 but I'm not sure the 95 team is better overall. And if they were better, it's not as huge a gap as a comparison of their #2 guys. That's why I say having a good #2 does not always equate to a better team.

[NugzHeat3]

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.

Same thing with the early 00's Lakers. They don't win without Fox and Harper shutting down the perimeter or Horry and Fisher hitting clutch shots. Now they're considered "scrubs" that Shaq and Kobe carried to the title.
I think this applies to just about every championship team though. But in the literal sense, how casual fans view it; those guys are considered scrubs. Wade and co don't win the finals w/o Payton but you start a thread regarding that team and people will trash the supporting cast. Even Shaq's value gets trashed because his finals numbers were weak but people ignore the Mavs were focused on stopping Shaq in the first 4 games or so.

Most people remember greatness; the key components of those teams. The role players are often forgotten unless you go back and watch some of those games again and realize their true value. You'll hear the same thing about the Mavs that just won. Its going to be Dirk and scrubs; in reality that is not true but that's just how people will view it in time because the names don't really stand out and neither do the #s.


Ewing's Knicks were good. They were title contenders from 92 - 95 and again in 97. Was within one shot of winning it all in 94. Ewing had his chances...they just lost to better teams. If they had brought in an offensive guy like Melo, they would have lost some of the defense and effort that made them so good in the first place.

Were they imbalanced? Yes. But I think that was because they were built specifically to beat Chicago. They loaded up on bruising power forwards and defensive specialists to win the battle of the boards, push Chicago to the breaking point and maybe win that way. They knew they weren't going to outscore Chicago so why try? I always wondered what would have happened if they made it to the Finals in 93. They would have beaten the Bulls to get there but were all wrong for a team like the Suns. I think they would have lost to Phoenix because they didn't match up too well with them. That defense would have been spread out too thin.
True. I think a guy like Melo changes the identity of the team for better or worse so they'd have to revamp the roster to some extent.

I also think Ewing deserves some blame too especially in 1994 and 1995. Ewing could and really should've been the difference maker. But he didn't quite have that athleticism left and he was dealing with injuries in 1995.

I disagree regarding the Suns though. I'm interested in your take. I think they would do as good of a job as you could possibly hope on Barkley. Ewing could be the roamer because they aren't really concerned with Mark West or Oliver Miller. KJ wasn't that great in 1993 and he'll have a good initial defender in Doc Rivers. With Barkley and KJ being relatively contained, a key thing the Suns lose is their shooting because those guys were responsible for creating for the rest and shooting is something which they thrived on and often built momentum with since it got the crowd hyped. Majerle and Ainge specifically.

Ewing could have a big series offensively as well due to their weak frontline. But Barkley is the biggest big game performer in the series so that's an edge PHX would have.

I think a lot also depends on how well the Knicks cope with PHX's running game because Eastern squads didn't really play uptempo. The Knicks wanted you to grind it out, limit transition opportunities as much as possible while PHX was the polar opposite in that regard. Would be a cool series nonethless.

[NugzHeat3]

Not really, the '94 Rocket team was a product of Hakeem. They were normal role players, in fact if you look at every series the Rockets played during their back-to-backs they were often weaker at almost every position minus the center one.

Otis is one of my favorite player of all-time but he was not the typical 2nd best player on a title winning team and he had a couple of match-ups against easily better players during the '94 runs like against Malone and Barkley.

Elie was a bench player, the guy could shoot the open 3 and play hard nosed defense but I can't recall a worse starter than him at his position on a title winning team.

Kenny got abused through the whole '94-'95 playoffs, he got outplayed in every single match-up.

And the Rockets without Hakeem from '92-'96 won 7 games and lost 27 games which makes them a .25 % team without Hakeem. Lets not overrate them.

But other than that particular Rocket team I agree with the points you made.
The bolded is convenient because it ignores 1991 where they went 16-10 without him. :oldlol:

[millwad]

Not taking anything away from Hakeem but I'm not sure the 95 Rockets with Drexler is any better than the 94 Rockets without him. It's certainly not a no-brainer. Drexler as a number 2 >>>>>>> whoever was #2 in 94 but I'm not sure the 95 team is better overall. And if they were better, it's not as huge a gap as a comparison of their #2 guys. That's why I say having a good #2 does not always equate to a better team.

You are completely right about the #2 point, I couldn't agree more.
But the thing with the '95 team was that they dropped Maxwell, the guy freaked out and they couldn't handle him so right there they lost one of their key players. When they traded for Drexler they obviously lost Thorpe and Herrera who was supposed to be the new starting PF got injured so their back-up solution was to put Horry there. So it had alot to do with the circumstances, Herrera getting injured, Maxwell being a dick, Olajuwon missing regular season games.

Personally I still would choose the '95 team as the better team, they faced better competition and still came on top with Hakeem and Drexler leading the team.

So I don't know if the Rockets were a spot on comparison but you are completely right about what you wrote.

[millwad]

The bolded is convenient because it ignores 1991 where they went 16-10 without him. :oldlol:

Yeah, I know but I wouldn't really compare his '93-'96 run with the Hakeem of '91. He had a big off year in the '91 season and he didn't even make the all-star team that year, the only time he didn't get voted in as an all-star from the '86 season to the '97 season.

[eliteballer]

Lose identity? Does anyone else remember that game winning block Nique' had on MJ in the 93 reg season?

[Jasper]

Fact was the franchise was making tons of money during this time frame... no empty seats watching riles and van gundy teams play awesome defense and seeing ewing basically carry the team on his shoulders.

Fans of the Knicks knew and bagged for additional help ...

So they dropped money to late on a SG that only did jump shots and then blew out his knee.
:oldlol:
Remember the first year Ewing came into the league a , defensive , rebounding college playing machine , turns into a awesome wing jump shooter as well.

NY's owner 2 years into Ewings career had many opportunities to bring a player or two into the fold and make legit runs....

AND HE DID NOT.

[Da_Realist]

I disagree regarding the Suns though. I'm interested in your take. I think they would do as good of a job as you could possibly hope on Barkley. Ewing could be the roamer because they aren't really concerned with Mark West or Oliver Miller. KJ wasn't that great in 1993 and he'll have a good initial defender in Doc Rivers. With Barkley and KJ being relatively contained, a key thing the Suns lose is their shooting because those guys were responsible for creating for the rest and shooting is something which they thrived on and often built momentum with since it got the crowd hyped. Majerle and Ainge specifically.

Ewing could have a big series offensively as well due to their weak frontline. But Barkley is the biggest big game performer in the series so that's an edge PHX would have.

I think a lot also depends on how well the Knicks cope with PHX's running game because Eastern squads didn't really play uptempo. The Knicks wanted you to grind it out, limit transition opportunities as much as possible while PHX was the polar opposite in that regard. Would be a cool series nonethless.

I've gone back and forth on this mythical match up for years. I give Phoenix the edge more often than not because they would have kept the tempo up and moved the basketball. Barkley was a beast that year and nobody on the Knicks would have contained KJ. (We would have seen more of the real KJ that series than he was against the Bulls because the Knicks weren't nearly as good defensively full court as they were in a half court set.) Knicks defenders were good but...Oakley and Mason aren't as good defensively as far out on the perimeter as Phoenix would have had them. I see Oakley being forced to help inside and then having to close out on Wesley Person to prevent the 3. New York loved predictability...and Chicago was predictable in their own way. I mean, it's hard to figure out the triangle and of course Jordan/Pippen but there was some predictability to the others. Horace Grant wasn't going to be shooting 3 point shots. Bill Cartwright wasn't going to leave the low block and they didn't have to worry about Paxson penetrating in the lane. Phoenix was just...schizophrenic. Barkley shooting threes, Majerle shooting from damn near half court :eek:, Oliver Miller was a passing threat on the perimeter, KJ could get anywhere he wanted and they had a wildcard in Richard Dumas. I don't know what NY would have done with all those parts that don't fit the usual NBA team.

:EDIT Wesley Person wasn't on the 93 team. Just replace him with Ainge or Majerle

[NugzHeat3]

Lose identity? Does anyone else remember that game winning block Nique' had on MJ in the 93 reg season?
He had a few nice defensive plays in crunch time like that one but for the most part he was an absolute sieve defensively.

I mean lets get real here. We're talking about a that guy was voted one of the 10 worst defenders of all time in 1996 by league members.

So they definitely change a bit in that regard. Nique would probably give more effort under Riley though. Hardaway was similar; he didn't care for defense in GSW but bought into the concept with Miami.

[NugzHeat3]

I've gone back and forth on this mythical match up for years. I give Phoenix the edge more often than not because they would have kept the tempo up and moved the basketball. Barkley was a beast that year and nobody on the Knicks would have contained KJ. (We would have seen more of the real KJ that series than he was against the Bulls because the Knicks were nearly as good full court as they were in a half court set.) Knicks defenders were good but...Oakley and Mason aren't as good defensively as far out on the perimeter as Phoenix would have had them. I see Oakley being forced to help inside and then having to close out on Wesley Person to prevent the 3. New York loved predictability...and Chicago was predictable in their own way. I mean, it's hard to figure out the triangle and of course Jordan/Pippen but there was some predictability to the others. Horace Grant wasn't going to be shooting 3 point shots. Bill Cartwright wasn't going to leave the low block and they didn't have to worry about Paxson penetrating in the lane. Phoenix was just...schizophrenic. Barkley shooting threes, Majerle shooting from damn near half court :eek:, Oliver Miller was a passing threat on the perimeter, KJ could get anywhere he wanted and they had a wildcard in Richard Dumas. I don't know what NY would have done with all those parts that don't fit the usual NBA team.
I don't remember KJ being unstoppable that year. He had his moments but for the most part, he just wasn't the same player. I think Greg Anthony may have done a better job on him than Rivers because Anthony's foot speed was faster than Doc's.

I think Mason could do a better job on Barkley than Oakley. Mason moved his feet well and was a really strong, bulky guy. Didn't really give up position easily (remember his defense on Hakeem in the finals).

I think you meant to say Dumas instead of Person because Person wasn't there till 1995.

But your point is the reason I was sort of skepticial in the first place. PHX is more of a frenetic team and NYK wasn't quite used to that playing in the East so it would've been interesting to see how they adjust. BTW, Majerle was funny launching 30 footers in the finals. :oldlol:

One thing I'll say, I'll always question the Suns because in the back of my mind, I'll remember that call they got to barely sneak by the 39 W Lakers and the fact they didn't face Houston.

[Sarcastic]

Dirk had....... Jason Terry

He's better than John Starks.

Tyson Chandler is the real reason Dirk won anyway.

[Da_Realist]

I don't remember KJ being unstoppable that year. He had his moments but for the most part, he just wasn't the same player. I think Greg Anthony may have done a better job on him than Rivers because Anthony's foot speed was faster than Doc's.

I think Mason could do a better job on Barkley than Oakley. Mason moved his feet well and was a really strong, bulky guy. Didn't really give up position easily (remember his defense on Hakeem in the finals).

I think you meant to say Dumas instead of Person because Person wasn't there till 1995.

But your point is the reason I was sort of skepticial in the first place. PHX is more of a frenetic team and NYK wasn't quite used to that playing in the East so it would've been interesting to see how they adjust. BTW, Majerle was funny launching 30 footers in the finals. :oldlol:

One thing I'll say, I'll always question the Suns because in the back of my mind, I'll remember that call they got to barely sneak by the 39 W Lakers and the fact they didn't face Houston.

It definitely would have been interesting...but I'm glad I didn't see it :D

By the way, you think the 97 Knicks were the best of Ewing's teams? I can't make up my mind on that.

[Sarcastic]

Spree was awesome in that lockout Finals run. Unfortunately Ewing was on the decline by then.

Ewing was hurt and didn't play for the Finals. :cry:

[cavsfanatic]

Carmelo has been out of the 1st rd once so I don't know what he talking bout.

[Clutch]

Carmelo has been out of the 1st rd once so I don't know what he talking bout.
And how many times was Garnett out of the 1st round until he came to Boston ?
Right,and he is still considered an all-time great.

[FatComputerNerd]

Their 99 finals run was mostly thanks to Sprewell and Camby

[Go Getter]

Dirk had....... Jason Terry
And Jason Kidd, and Tyson Chander, and Steve Nash (once upon a time), and Shaw Marion...

[Blue&Orange]

NBA players and their ego's. He can eventually even be right, probably is, but it isn't classy at all.

[NugzHeat3]

It definitely would have been interesting...but I'm glad I didn't see it :D

By the way, you think the 97 Knicks were the best of Ewing's teams? I can't make up my mind on that.
I think the 1997 team is probably the best one.

Ewing was slightly worse as opposed to his 1992-95 self. How much? I'm not quite sure. Offensively, its roughly a wash because he was mainly a jumpshooter in these years. He actually played better against Zo and PJ Brown (two great defenders) than he did in some of the series in that time span. With Zo, he kind of knew what he was getting into since he was his mentor and knew his game really well (both John Thompson students). I think if he lost something, its on the defensive end although I remember Smits working him on the block in those years as well. Shot blocking/rebounding is something I'd say was worse.

Their PF rotation was solid with Oakley and Buck Williams. Both are your prototypical PFs doing the dirty work, playing good defense and hitting the jumpshot when played off of.

Childs was a solid starter, good defense, made smart plays and could hit the outside jumper. If you're comparing them to the 1993 team, he roughly cancels out Rivers, better probably because Doc was injured on the reg. Ward roughly cancels out Greg Anthony and Hubert Davis. None of these guys are as good as Mark Jackson though and Jackson isn't good as Derek Harper.

Houston was the biggest upgrade imo. Houston gave them another reliable scorer and relieved some off the pressure off both Patrick and Starks. Now, Starks can be used to bring a scoring punch off the bench.

LJ was decent and he made it work on talent but I don't think he was a great fit on that team because the post was already occupied. His talents were underutilized offensively but I think he got better as a defender that year, losing weight and moulding into a SF.

That's how I see it. Spacing on the offensive end and a more balanced scoring load. The defense isn't quite as good though still great.

[bluechox2]

"camby man" was the difference only to hit 2 big walls..

[Da_Realist]

I think the 1997 team is probably the best one.

Ewing was slightly worse as opposed to his 1992-95 self. How much? I'm not quite sure. Offensively, its roughly a wash because he was mainly a jumpshooter in these years. He actually played better against Zo and PJ Brown (two great defenders) than he did in some of the series in that time span. With Zo, he kind of knew what he was getting into since he was his mentor and knew his game really well (both John Thompson students). I think if he lost something, its on the defensive end although I remember Smits working him on the block in those years as well. Shot blocking/rebounding is something I'd say was worse.

Their PF rotation was solid with Oakley and Buck Williams. Both are your prototypical PFs doing the dirty work, playing good defense and hitting the jumpshot when played off of.

Childs was a solid starter, good defense, made smart plays and could hit the outside jumper. If you're comparing them to the 1993 team, he roughly cancels out Rivers, better probably because Doc was injured on the reg. Ward roughly cancels out Greg Anthony and Hubert Davis. None of these guys are as good as Mark Jackson though and Jackson isn't good as Derek Harper.

Houston was the biggest upgrade imo. Houston gave them another reliable scorer and relieved some off the pressure off both Patrick and Starks. Now, Starks can be used to bring a scoring punch off the bench.

LJ was decent and he made it work on talent but I don't think he was a great fit on that team because the post was already occupied. His talents were underutilized offensively but I think he got better as a defender that year, losing weight and moulding into a SF.

That's how I see it. Spacing on the offensive end and a more balanced scoring load. The defense isn't quite as good though still great.

You replace a better Ewing and A+ defense for A- defense and better offensive balance. I may have to agree with you. That should have been another epic battle between Chicago and NY. And probably would have been as good as 92-94.

[SmackOrH.A.K]

yeah people need to realize Ewing did it all pretty much on his own. Cant blame him for not having a ring. If i remember correctly Hakeem had Drexler, Robinson had Duncan etc.
okay...first of all hakeem won his first championship AGAINST EWING, WITHOUT DREXLER or anyone close to all star level. he did have great role players but they were still not Starks or Oakleys. infact hakeem and d-rob freaking raped Ewing one on one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuSMjUTGQTg

[knickswin]

Too much is being made of who has the best "sidekick". A collection of B teammates is better than one B+ teammate and a bunch of scrubs.

I'd take the 92 or 93 Knicks over Ewing/Melo and filler.

Defense and effort. Two things Melo is criticized for. Ewing had his chances with some good teams, he just lost.

Eh, I'd take Ewing/Melo and filler unless the filler were D leaguers or something like that. The thing is, a really good scorer either commands a double or will kill his defender one-on-one. Commanding doubles I think is really important because if the guy getting doubled is a decent enough passer it opens things up for less offensively talented teammates and makes their jobs a lot easier.

I think DMAVS' point about most championship teams having at least two really good players is true, and it's because if you have two players who more or less command doubles playing in a system that allows for them to pass out of doubles to give teammates easy looks, that team is more or less impossible to stop with five defenders.

If Ewing had a guy like Melo who would take so much of the offensive load off of him (really, Carmelo would be the first option on that team), I think the Knicks would have won a championship at some point in the 90s. I like John Starks, Charles Oakley, and Allan Houston, but they're not Carmelo.

[eliteballer]

The only time prime ewing had anything close to resembling a "star" was when he had Mcdaniel, and he was just a one time all star.

Guess what? They took the best Bulls team to 7......

[eliteballer]

Starks an all-star, i remember that:roll: Oakley was just a great roleplayer. Its like comparing prime Marion to Dirk...yeah the numbers arent all that different but......

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ewing had excellent defenders on his cast and Pat Riley utilized the limited talent around him really well, but it was ewing and role players. He could've used more offensive weapons. Starks could be a good offensive player, but he was really too streaky to be the 2nd option, imo. Then the whole Don nelson situation was a disaster. I'd agree that the '97 Knicks were the best cast he had as an elite player. The 2000 team was really good as well, unfortunately, he was too old by that point.

His 1990 season was wasted, though. That was by far his best season, however he had no chance of winning a title with a cast that consisted of Oakley(who had missed the final 17 regular season games), 33 year old Mo Cheeks(who was acquired in a midseason trade and only started the final 13 regular season games), Gerald Wilkins, 31 year old Kiki Vandweghe(who missed most of the season and didn't even play until March, Johnny Newman, Trent Tucker and Kenny Walker.

It's amazing that they won 3 straight elimination games to beat an aging, but much more talented Celtics team. And they did so because of Ewing's dominance. Granted, Ewing didn't play that well against Detroit outside of game 3. Detroit really limited him, but with that cast, he had no chance of beating the defending champ Pistons who were absolutely loaded.

[Da_Realist]

Eh, I'd take Ewing/Melo and filler unless the filler were D leaguers or something like that. The thing is, a really good scorer either commands a double or will kill his defender one-on-one. Commanding doubles I think is really important because if the guy getting doubled is a decent enough passer it opens things up for less offensively talented teammates and makes their jobs a lot easier.

I think DMAVS' point about most championship teams having at least two really good players is true, and it's because if you have two players who more or less command doubles playing in a system that allows for them to pass out of doubles to give teammates easy looks, that team is more or less impossible to stop with five defenders.

If Ewing had a guy like Melo who would take so much of the offensive load off of him (really, Carmelo would be the first option on that team), I think the Knicks would have won a championship at some point in the 90s. I like John Starks, Charles Oakley, and Allan Houston, but they're not Carmelo.

I wouldn't rest my championship dreams on Melo so I'm a little biased against that. I'd take my chances with Ewing as the #1 with Melo filling in at #2.

[NugzHeat3]

Ewing had excellent defenders on his cast and Pat Riley utilized the limited talent around him really well, but it was ewing and role players. He could've used more offensive weapons. Starks could be a good offensive player, but he was really too streaky to be the 2nd option, imo. Then the whole Don nelson situation was a disaster. I'd agree that the '97 Knicks were the best cast he had as an elite player. The 2000 team was really good as well, unfortunately, he was too old by that point.

His 1990 season was wasted, though. That was by far his best season, however he had no chance of winning a title with a cast that consisted of Oakley(who had missed the final 17 regular season games), 33 year old Mo Cheeks(who was acquired in a midseason trade and only started the final 13 regular season games), Gerald Wilkins, 31 year old Kiki Vandweghe(who missed most of the season and didn't even play until March, Johnny Newman, Trent Tucker and Kenny Walker.

It's amazing that they won 3 straight elimination games to beat an aging, but much more talented Celtics team. And they did so because of Ewing's dominance. Granted, Ewing didn't play that well against Detroit outside of game 3. Detroit really limited him, but with that cast, he had no chance of beating the defending champ Pistons who were absolutely loaded.
That was a great year for Ewing. He got league wide recognition as well. In the Sporting News Player of the year voting:

Lakers Coach Pat Riley has been selected by his peers as The Sporting News' Coach of the Year and NBA players have voted Philadelphia 76ers forward Charles Barkley over Magic Johnson as Player of the Year, the St. Louis-based publication said today,

In balloting by 180 NBA players for Sporting News Player of the Year, Barkley received 57 1/2 votes. Johnson received 44 1/2. Chicago's Michael Jordan was third with 44 votes, followed by New York's Patrick Ewing with 21 1/2 and Houston's Akeem Olajuwon with seven.

^LA Times, May 1990. Pretty amazing to get a decent amount of votes with Jordan, Magic and Barkley playing at their best.

This is another nice piece on him early in the season when the Knicks were doing well. It focuses on his improvements that year as well as the impact he's making.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XeseAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2M4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6796,6709404&dq=olajuwon+best+center&hl=en

Mychal Thompson mentions he's arguably the best in the league, neck and neck with Magic. Jordan gives him some props as well.

[ShaqAttack3234]

That was a great year for Ewing. He got league wide recognition as well. In the Sporting News Player of the year voting:

^LA Times, May 1990. Pretty amazing to get a decent amount of votes with Jordan, Magic and Barkley playing at their best.

This is another nice piece on him early in the season when the Knicks were doing well. It focuses on his improvements that year as well as the impact he's making.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XeseAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2M4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6796,6709404&dq=olajuwon+best+center&hl=en

Mychal Thompson mentions he's arguably the best in the league, neck and neck with Magic. Jordan gives him some props as well.

Yeah, I saw that Mychael Thompson quote in this Sports Illustrated article.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123089/index.htm

He was considered right there in the MVP race through most of the season until the Knicks record fell off in March when Oakley went down, and their rotation was changing with the midseason trade and some players coming back. They also had to transition Cheeks into the starting point guard role due to Mark Jackson playing so poorly that I've seen several 1990 games where he was getting booed at home.

The article talking about his improvements is good. I thought his passing seemed better that year, and I think he handled double teams better than during the mid 90's because he was quicker and more decisive with his moves. it made him seem less predictable than the version of Ewing I watched growing up. He could shoot jumpers, but didn't seem to drift as far out on the perimeter or fall in love with the 18-20 footers like he could later in his career. That and the added athleticism as well as Jackson emphasizing him getting more touches makes that version of Ewing vastly superior to any other.

Here's a quote from Magic as well.


''If he doesn't win it, he'll be right there,'' said Magic Johnson, who has won the award twice. ''And if he continues putting up the numbers he's putting up, it's going to be hard for any of us to beat him out.

''He has taken his game to another level,'' Johnson continued, ''a level I've never seen him play at before. He's dominating offensively and defensively, but he's also making the right plays at the right time. He's leading his team, as opposed to before, when it seemed he'd just as soon let somebody else lead. That's the real mark of an m.v.p.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/sports/pro-basketball-ewing-demanding-attention.html

Here's one from the NY Times in January of that year.


As a result of all of this, Ewing, at least to this point, is the leading candidate for league's most valuable player award.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/09/sports/notebook-ewing-at-the-heart-of-knick-thrill-show.html

[NugzHeat3]

Yeah, I saw that Mychael Thompson quote in this Sports Illustrated article.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123089/index.htm

He was considered right there in the MVP race through most of the season until the Knicks record fell off in March when Oakley went down, and their rotation was changing with the midseason trade and some players coming back. They also had to transition Cheeks into the starting point guard role due to Mark Jackson playing so poorly that I've seen several 1990 games where he was getting booed at home.

The article talking about his improvements is good. I thought his passing seemed better that year, and I think he handled double teams better than during the mid 90's because he was quicker and more decisive with his moves. it made him seem less predictable than the version of Ewing I watched growing up. He could shoot jumpers, but didn't seem to drift as far out on the perimeter or fall in love with the 18-20 footers like he could later in his career. That and the added athleticism as well as Jackson emphasizing him getting more touches makes that version of Ewing vastly superior to any other.

Here's a quote from Magic as well.



http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/sports/pro-basketball-ewing-demanding-attention.html

Here's one from the NY Times in January of that year.



http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/09/sports/notebook-ewing-at-the-heart-of-knick-thrill-show.html
That SI article you linked was a great read. Bird questioned his rebounding but I wouldn't be terribly concerned with it since he's playing next to Oakley and getting around 4 blocks which will naturally leave him out of position. He really came a long way that season and you see it in the stats too, its a sudden improvement by a great amount.

The bolded is a great breakdown of his game. I do wonder one thing though. They seem like an average defensive team that year despite the personnel being there. Ewing is probably at his best defensively, Oakley and Wilkins are two good-great defenders and Mo Cheeks, you mentioned, was a good defender as well though past his prime at that point.

Jackson getting boo'd is funny though. :oldlol: I think it was in that 51 pt game you posted against Boston.

[knickswin]

I wouldn't rest my championship dreams on Melo so I'm a little biased against that. I'd take my chances with Ewing as the #1 with Melo filling in at #2.

Eh, like ShaqAttack and NugzHeat have been talking about, it depends on which Ewing you're talking about. There's a big difference between 1990 Ewing and just about every other version of Ewing, particularly the late 90s versions. 1990 Ewing would probably be the first option and there'd be a Shaq/Kobe dynamic. Ewing was so dominant inside that year, and even though he had that jumper, he didn't settle for it too much.

After that though, I think Carmelo would be the first option. The Ewing I remember was always settling for those elbow and baseline jumpers. As a scorer, Carmelo's better than that. I mean, that's kind of similar to Amar'e's game and he's definitely the second option to Carmelo.

[ShaqAttack3234]

That SI article you linked was a great read. Bird questioned his rebounding but I wouldn't be terribly concerned with it since he's playing next to Oakley and getting around 4 blocks which will naturally leave him out of position. He really came a long way that season and you see it in the stats too, its a sudden improvement by a great amount.

Ewing's rebounding was respectable that season for a star center, not as good as some, but not a weakness. Playing with Oakley probably did lower his rebounding numbers.

Here are Ewing's numbers in 21 games without Oakley that season.

29.8 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 2 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.1 spg, 3.2 TO, 56.1 FG%

Rebounding went up noticeably, shot blocking fell off a bit and interestingly, his scoring and efficiency went up.

He actually had two 40/20 games that season and flirted with 40/20 three other times. A very rare feat, look up how few times this has been done going back as far as basketball-reference's gamelogs go.

44/24/4/3, 17/27 FG, 10/15 FT vs Golden State
44/22/4/7/2, 18/28 FG, 8/12 FT vs Clippers
37/21/3/6, 15/26 FG, 7/9 FT vs Denver
37/19/2/9, 17/24 FG, 3/4 FT vs Philly
51/18, 20/29 FG, 11/13 FT vs Boston

Another interesting fact is that he had eleven 40+ point games during the regular season and shot over 60% in all of them. As well as during his 44 point game vs Boston in the playoffs when he shot 18/24. Just missed the 60% mark in his 45 point game vs Detroit in the second round when he shot 14/24(58.3%)


The bolded is a great breakdown of his game. I do wonder one thing though. They seem like an average defensive team that year despite the personnel being there. Ewing is probably at his best defensively, Oakley and Wilkins are two good-great defenders and Mo Cheeks, you mentioned, was a good defender as well though past his prime at that point.

Cheeks was still good, but older and didn't play that much with the Knicks during the regular season. Mark Jackson was the starting point guard for most of the season and he couldn't guard a chair. Oakley was good, but missed 21 games. Would be interested to see their defensive rating with and without Oakley. they did have the personnel to be better and it's puzzling considering how good Ewing was defensively. here's a good game highlighting his defense.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3B5F37EC462D7E92


Jackson getting boo'd is funny though. :oldlol: I think it was in that 51 pt game you posted against Boston.

yeah, he got booed in that game as well as a March 13th game vs Chicago that Da realist posted off the top of my head.

[NugzHeat3]

Ewing's rebounding was respectable that season for a star center, not as good as some, but not a weakness. Playing with Oakley probably did lower his rebounding numbers.

Here are Ewing's numbers in 21 games without Oakley that season.

29.8 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 2 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.1 spg, 3.2 TO, 56.1 FG%

Rebounding went up noticeably, shot blocking fell off a bit and interestingly, his scoring and efficiency went up.

He actually had two 40/20 games that season and flirted with 40/20 three other times. A very rare feat, look up how few times this has been done going back as far as basketball-reference's gamelogs go.

44/24/4/3, 17/27 FG, 10/15 FT vs Golden State
44/22/4/7/2, 18/28 FG, 8/12 FT vs Clippers
37/21/3/6, 15/26 FG, 7/9 FT vs Denver
37/19/2/9, 17/24 FG, 3/4 FT vs Philly
51/18, 20/29 FG, 11/13 FT vs Boston

Another interesting fact is that he had eleven 40+ point games during the regular season and shot over 60% in all of them. As well as during his 44 point game vs Boston in the playoffs when he shot 18/24. Just missed the 60% mark in his 45 point game vs Detroit in the second round when he shot 14/24(58.3%)



Cheeks was still good, but older and didn't play that much with the Knicks during the regular season. Mark Jackson was the starting point guard for most of the season and he couldn't guard a chair. Oakley was good, but missed 21 games. Would be interested to see their defensive rating with and without Oakley. they did have the personnel to be better and it's puzzling considering how good Ewing was defensively. here's a good game highlighting his defense.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3B5F37EC462D7E92



yeah, he got booed in that game as well as a March 13th game vs Chicago that Da realist posted off the top of my head.
Wow, I just watched the last 20 seconds of the Bulls vs Knicks game you linked. There's no way Tucker got the shot off in time but still it was an incredibly quick, high arcing release and an amazing shot all things considered.

Good looking out on the numbers. 11 40 pt games sort of shocked me.

I guess the perimeter defense - Wilkins was the weak link on that team. Jackson, Kiki are not exactly solid in that regard.

A little OT but have you noticed how badly Shaq killed the Knicks in 1995?

4 games against Ewing, a great defensive team and here are his numbers.

40.2 ppg
13 rpg
62.9 FG%

:bowdown:

Makes me wish the Knicks beat the Pacers in the POs that year. Shaq would've wrecked that team apart if the regular season is any indication.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wow, I just watched the last 20 seconds of the Bulls vs Knicks game you linked. There's no way Tucker got the shot off in time but still it was an incredibly quick, high arcing release and an amazing shot all things considered.

Good looking out on the numbers. 11 40 pt games sort of shocked me.

I guess the perimeter defense - Wilkins was the weak link on that team. Jackson, Kiki are not exactly solid in that regard.

A little OT but have you noticed how badly Shaq killed the Knicks in 1995?

4 games against Ewing, a great defensive team and here are his numbers.

40.2 ppg
13 rpg
62.9 FG%

:bowdown:

Makes me wish the Knicks beat the Pacers in the POs that year. Shaq would've wrecked that team apart if the regular season is any indication.

Yeah, regarding the Knicks defense in '90, personnel doesn't always tell the story.

it's kind of like the 2001 Lakers. the previous season they were the best defensive team in the league, but were then mediocre throughout the regular season. Shaq wasn't quite as good defensively, particularly at the start of the season, but Fox was a big improvement over Rice and Grant was an improvement over Green. Then they went on to play extremely well defensively in the playoffs. And that was with Harper not really being around and I thought that Bryant/Harper backcourt was better defensively than the Fisher/Bryant backcourt. Fisher was a good defensive guard back then, but Harper was better and that put Kobe guarding point guards more often, and his on the ball defense vs smaller guards was exceptional in 2000 and 2001(before Harper went down) due to his length and quickness.

Part of it was probably the team lacking chemistry with the Shaq/Kobe feud, Isaiah Rider causing distractions ect. as well as Shaq being lazier and Kobe forcing things more leading to more turnovers and poor shots which can also lead to baskets for opposing teams.

But what's even more puzzling to me is that I have no doubt that Shaq was better defensively in 2001 than 2002, and Grant was a better defender than Samaki Walker, yet the 2002 Lakers were better defensively than the 2001 Lakers....by far.

They held opponents to a league best 42.4% from the field, and had the 7th best defensive rating at 101.7, but it was something like 103.8, iirc in the 15 games Shaq missed so in reality, their defensive rating was probably equal to at least top 5 when Shaq played.

So the 2001 season ends up even more puzzling to me than the '90 Knicks considering the personnel as well as their defense in '00 and '02.

Didn't know that about Shaq's numbers in '95 vs Ewing. I remember that he started dominating him at one point, but didn't know his numbers looked like that. '95 Shaq was noticeably better than '93 or '94. More skilled, polished and better equipped to face tough defenses.

[Scoooter]

Eh, like ShaqAttack and NugzHeat have been talking about, it depends on which Ewing you're talking about. There's a big difference between 1990 Ewing and just about every other version of Ewing, particularly the late 90s versions. 1990 Ewing would probably be the first option and there'd be a Shaq/Kobe dynamic. Ewing was so dominant inside that year, and even though he had that jumper, he didn't settle for it too much.

After that though, I think Carmelo would be the first option. The Ewing I remember was always settling for those elbow and baseline jumpers. As a scorer, Carmelo's better than that. I mean, that's kind of similar to Amar'e's game and he's definitely the second option to Carmelo.
That's not really Amar'e's game though. He shot a lot of jumpers last year because he didn't have a competent point guard helping him get anything better. He absolutely thrives as a finisher in the paint. If this Knicks team added someone like Steve Nash, Amar'e may well become the first option.

[NugzHeat3]

Yeah, regarding the Knicks defense in '90, personnel doesn't always tell the story.

it's kind of like the 2001 Lakers. the previous season they were the best defensive team in the league, but were then mediocre throughout the regular season. Shaq wasn't quite as good defensively, particularly at the start of the season, but Fox was a big improvement over Rice and Grant was an improvement over Green. Then they went on to play extremely well defensively in the playoffs. And that was with Harper not really being around and I thought that Bryant/Harper backcourt was better defensively than the Fisher/Bryant backcourt. Fisher was a good defensive guard back then, but Harper was better and that put Kobe guarding point guards more often, and his on the ball defense vs smaller guards was exceptional in 2000 and 2001(before Harper went down) due to his length and quickness.

Part of it was probably the team lacking chemistry with the Shaq/Kobe feud, Isaiah Rider causing distractions ect. as well as Shaq being lazier and Kobe forcing things more leading to more turnovers and poor shots which can also lead to baskets for opposing teams.

But what's even more puzzling to me is that I have no doubt that Shaq was better defensively in 2001 than 2002, and Grant was a better defender than Samaki Walker, yet the 2002 Lakers were better defensively than the 2001 Lakers....by far.

They held opponents to a league best 42.4% from the field, and had the 7th best defensive rating at 101.7, but it was something like 103.8, iirc in the 15 games Shaq missed so in reality, their defensive rating was probably equal to at least top 5 when Shaq played.

So the 2001 season ends up even more puzzling to me than the '90 Knicks considering the personnel as well as their defense in '00 and '02.

Didn't know that about Shaq's numbers in '95 vs Ewing. I remember that he started dominating him at one point, but didn't know his numbers looked like that. '95 Shaq was noticeably better than '93 or '94. More skilled, polished and better equipped to face tough defenses.
Yeah the 2001 team really stepped up in the playoffs after an underachieving season.

You should check their defensive numbers out here (in the paint, perimeter). Kind of shows the value of their defense and who was having the greatest impact. It only goes up till 1998 but its interesting nonetheless.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/opponentstats/00/4/eff/1-1

In 2000, LA was giving up a lot of shots in the paint but their opposing FG% is 2nd right after Miami which kind of illustrates Zo's and Shaq's impact.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah the 2001 team really stepped up in the playoffs after an underachieving season.

You should check their defensive numbers out here (in the paint, perimeter). Kind of shows the value of their defense and who was having the greatest impact. It only goes up till 1998 but its interesting nonetheless.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/opponentstats/00/4/eff/1-1

In 2000, LA was giving up a lot of shots in the paint but their opposing FG% is 2nd right after Miami which kind of illustrates Zo's and Shaq's impact.

Thanks, pretty interesting, I'm surprised they have these stats available. The Spurs were number 3 in 2000 in terms of opponents FG% in the paint in 2000. Makes sense considering Duncan/Robinson. It also shows how much of an impact Zo's shot blocking had considering Miami was only 7th in defensive rating in 2000, but first in opponents FG% in the paint.

Lakers were 7th in 2001(surprising when you consider they were below average in defensive rating) and 1st in 2002.

Similar with Howard in Orlando, 2nd in 2007 and 2008, 3rd in 2009, 1st in 2010 and 2nd in 2011.

Regarding your comment about LA giving up a lot of shots in the paint, but forcing opponents into a low percentage. here's Phil's comments on that about the 2000 season.


we were funneling guys baseline and sideline, and overplaying everybody so they'd be forced to deal with Shaq in the lane.

[NugzHeat3]

Thanks, pretty interesting, I'm surprised they have these stats available. The Spurs were number 3 in 2000 in terms of opponents FG% in the paint in 2000. Makes sense considering Duncan/Robinson. It also shows how much of an impact Zo's shot blocking had considering Miami was only 7th in defensive rating in 2000, but first in opponents FG% in the paint.

Lakers were 7th in 2001(surprising when you consider they were below average in defensive rating) and 1st in 2002.

Similar with Howard in Orlando, 2nd in 2007 and 2008, 3rd in 2009, 1st in 2010 and 2nd in 2011.

Regarding your comment about LA giving up a lot of shots in the paint, but forcing opponents into a low percentage. here's Phil's comments on that about the 2000 season.
Yeah that's what I was thinking too. Funneling to Shaq would've been the best idea. At first, I thought it was due to weak perimeter defense but then I realized it couldn't be.

[amfirst]

U don't need another superstar to win, just a balance team. The Mavs proved that.

Dirk was the only superstar, however, Jason Terry looked like a superstar also in the playoffs.

Shaq had Kobe, but the rest of the team sucked, besides when Rice came.

Where u lack u can balance out somewhere else. Mavs did this, their team was well balanced.

[ShaqAttack3234]

U don't need another superstar to win, just a balance team. The Mavs proved that.

Dirk was the only superstar, however, Jason Terry looked like a superstar also in the playoffs.

Shaq had Kobe, but the rest of the team sucked, besides when Rice came.

Where u lack u can balance out somewhere else. Mavs did this, their team was well balanced.

You're correct that you don't need another superstar to win except saying Terry played like one is an exaggeration.

Rice also wasn't even the 3rd best player from those 3 championship years. Both Fisher and Fox played better in the 2001 playoffs than Rice did in 2000, same with Horry in '02, even Ron Harper in '00 made more positive contributions. I'd say Grant's post defense in the 2001 run also made more of an impact.

[Rameek]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8IsQhlOJYtM/STVWVeqU1_I/AAAAAAAAAEY/7_CcMB3tcyo/s400/10755c31.jpg


Fact was the franchise was making tons of money during this time frame... no empty seats watching riles and van gundy teams play awesome defense and seeing ewing basically carry the team on his shoulders.

Fans of the Knicks knew and bagged for additional help ...

So they dropped money to late on a SG that only did jump shots and then blew out his knee.
:oldlol:
Remember the first year Ewing came into the league a , defensive , rebounding college playing machine , turns into a awesome wing jump shooter as well.

NY's owner 2 years into Ewings career had many opportunities to bring a player or two into the fold and make legit runs....

AND HE DID NOT.
Ewing's ego was too large to accept a co-star. Most Knick fans knows this.