Knicks have same problem as other teams in sports.
It's chemistry and working with the cap.
I think the fans have a certain mentality that with every sport you can just put this guy here and that guy there. Like the players are little pieces to some game. Little regard to their real position and ability.
I think because of contracts and the cap management does that too. Not so much the coaches but owners and GM's do that.
That said, I see a lot of teams without chemistry. I see a lot of teams who rely on free agents to put them over the top. Some times it works but most times it fails miserably.
I have a saying "Free agents don't win, they fill-in". In that I mean you build a team with a core of players you developed through drafting or trading for them early in their careers.
The team that come to mind is the Yankees, they are a perfect example of a team who won with it's core players. They used free agents to fill in certain places that were weak. Some of those FA's came through for them, most didn't. But it's a crap shoot and you can't rely on it and it's not sustainable. Most of them have their moment in glory and that's it, as with Schilling at Boston. He won it for them and has done nothing since.
The Yankees have dropped money, tons of money and came up short. Cashman is a smart man and is changing the way the Yankees are run, he's going back to what Michaels and Watson did when Steinbrenner was suspended. As soon as he came back they went to that formula of signing the big free agent and have come up short every year. Those high priced free agents have done nothing. Including A Rod and "The Big Eunuch" (I know it's unit, if you don't know what a Eunuch 'pronounced u-nik' is look it up..he he he) who were traded for but represent what a free agent's mentality is.
To me free agents are players looking for the biggest pay day period, as with Zito. They are not really interested in winning or anything other than money no matter what they say. There is the exception and a player will take less money for a better fit and maybe a chance to win.
The NY Giants football team had the same problem this year. A team cannot win signing aging injury prone veterans. They break down and it's too much of a crap shoot to pencil them in and say we solved all our problems now.
The Knicks have been trying to do that for years with FA's and trading for aging broken down veterans and rejects.
We signed Jefferies because we needed defense off the bench. He was perfect for that so why did Zeke try to use him in the starting line up? His big contract that's why. How could you start a guy like Lee making 10 times less money over Jefferies?(Isiah should have started Lee) That made Jefferies feel he has to play outside his abilities and start shooting 3 pointers and score, that's not his game and he was benched. But it was the pressure of the contract and Zeke let that happen. He should have defined Jefferies role and he didn't.
For that matter how could you start a lower first round draft pick over a higher. Again Lee is ahead of Frye in the learning curve at the power forward position which is his more natural position, Lee was one in college and Frye was a center. There we go again trying to put players in positions they are not comfortable in or not suited to play. It takes time to make that transition.
Again we tried that with Marbury and Francis and Q at the 3. Q is a swing 2-3 and maybe better off the bench. Francis was a reject who got dumped because he's a cancer. Van Gundy knew it right away and sent him packing.
Marbury has proven not to be a leader, everywhere he went the team struggled and got better when he left. So what made them think he would be different here? In his defense he is trying to change now and it's not easy after so many years to completely change your mentality and playing style. But he is doing it and I give him credit.
What made Zeke think James who did nothing his whole career would suddenly turn into Patrick Ewing because he had one good playoff series?
I understand the Curry thing. He is still young even though he has 5 years in the league. He is the same age as Frye believe it or not. So that is looking like a good move, but it was a very risky one. I'm not sold on Curry yet, his biggest problem is something that maturity will correct and that is effort.
I think the only way for the Knicks to be successful is to stop this trying to make players fit roles they are not suited for. They also much rid themselves of the last cancer and that is James. I think they have the core of players and have to stick to a rotation. Let the guys play and get comfortable with each other and their new positions.
The starting lineup should be:
Rose and Collins.
The only way that line up will work is if they learn to help each other on the defense. Lee has to adjust to the 3 and Frye to the 4, plus they can swing when Curry is out. You have enough guys on the bench who are skilled and if we have match-up problems we can go to Jefferies and Q. Cato is a good backup center and Nate is instant energy and offense. Q can also score in the low post and shoot the jumper, even 3 pointer. Jefferies can shut down any 2-3-4 who is tearing the team up. Balkman needs some more time and is developing nicely, once he gets a jumper he will be great. I see great chemistry there now. It's just a matter of time, playing and working together with a system.
Zeke knows what he's doing and I think he realized his mistakes. There were many!!!! But he is fixing it and I commend him on that. Once James is gone they can sign or draft the best player available and not worry about what we need. I think we have enough talent and depth to compete with anybody. It's the time involved. Those powerful teams that just win have had their core playing together for years........I hope when our core has been playing together for a few years we are in their league. I think we will be if we stay the course and stop messing around with chemistry and that plug and play mentality. We have to have a core to get to that level and we haven't had one since the Ewing years.
We do have some needs but I don't think there are any players in the NBA right now that would make us a better team. Maybe worth a few wins this year but not long term solutions.
Please no more washed up me first players and so called saviors. I had enough of that.
Our needs are there and it includes a point guard, some more beef in the middle at PF or C just to bang a little and not worry about scoring. Also a scorer/shooter off the bench even if it's a center who plays outside. If those players are veteran role players or younger draft picks it makes no difference. The core is here and let's stay the course and enjoy watching this team develop.
I need to clear some time to read this post.
THIS IS A HUGE POST !
it's not a post it's an essay....:hammerhead:
I was going to print it out and read it on the way home, but I just read it now. Many good points Big Daddy. But because you have three paragraphs devoted to David Lee starting, I have to ask ARE YOU MARC BERMAN OF THE NY POST?
Here's my feeling:
The odds on winning the whole thing in the NBA are 1 out of 30 (there are 30 teams). You have to take enough samplings for laws of probability to hold, but even if you took only 4 samplings, then your typical NBA team wins 4 championships every 120 years.
You're going to win your championships in bunches, when you assemble a great team. So you'll win maybe 2 championships in a 5 year period, then go 60 to 80 years without one, then win a couple more, etc.
That means the typical fan might go their whole lifetime without experiencing a championship.
My second theory is that to win a championship in the NBA, you need a 'greatest player of all time' on your team, a superstar by his side, and great coaching and complementary players. Look at who's won championships the last 25 years -- Jordan (with Pippen and Grant/Rodman) -- 6, Magic (with Worthy and Jabbar) -- 5, O'Neal (with Bryant and/or Wade) -- 4, Bird (with McHale and Parish) -- 3, Olajawon (with Cassel and Thorpe) -- 2, Duncan (with the Argentinian) -- 2. The other four are Philly with Moses Malone in his prime (with Erving and great overall team), and 3 by Detroit (all three times with a great overall team that didn't have a 'greatest player of all time' -- Isiah in my opinion was a superstar not a 'greatest of all time').
So for the Knicks, their next championship might be 40 or 50 years from now when they draft a 'greatest player of all time' and put a superstar by his side. This bunch may not be it.
They'll be fun to watch. The talent is young, etc.
So enjoy the ride and don't expect to win 'the whole thing'.
As for the Yanks, there's nothing wrong with them. In baseball you can spend money to narrow the odds down from 1-30 down to 1-8. You make the playoff, then its luck and health and everything else. 1-8 odds mean you'll not win the championship 7 out of every 8 years you make the playoffs. Very consistent with what the Yanks have been doing.
Greatest Players of All Time:
Wilt Chamberlain (when compared to his comp)
Bill Russell (when compared to his comp)
Dwight Howard (carried the Magic to three championships in 2010-2012
Otis Huffenpuff (drafted by the Knicks in 2047, carried them to three championships. LouV was dead by then.)
a mini-series, but a good post.
That is not a good starting rotation because crawford is stupid streaky and defense is weak... Marbury defense as well is well ummm... You at most will have a 9 man rotation on any given night for any given team baring injury and foul trouble... Also there are things called matchups that determine minutes as well... With that said...
Q has to start provided he is healthy... I just cant see Curry and Frye co-existing right now because they crowd the paint as of now so it should be Frye coming off the bench.... Lee starts at the 4.
James was signed because the Knicks had no center and they wanted him to clean up off the glass, be a presence in middle... Then the deal came up for Curry O well James is signed Curry health was a slight concern no problem we have James...
Francis is at home the same way Penny was sent home and soon to be there permantley.
I would rather see this starting 5:
Great Defense with people who can hit open shots when Curry is doubled
Basketball and Baseball are totally different sports and can not be compared... In Baseball like the Yankees its easier to get rid of a bad deal than in B-Ball....
LouV your theory on basketball championships is flawed because there are too many other factors that way in... Injuries and other great teams...
In the overall scope of things, injuries and other great teams are included. It even includes great management teams, which come and go over the course of 120 years. Even Red Aurebach dies at some point. This is probability theory; it holds true. Four samplings is too small; that's just an example. And also all things have to remain relatively equal.
But if there remains 30 NBA teams and the salary cap rules stay in effect for the next 300 years (10 samplings), then the Knicks should win 10 championships, give or take a few.
Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll win all 10 in the next 20 years and then go 280 years without one.
(Celtics of the sixties don't count cause there were less teams then and all things weren't equal; Aurebach held the league on his string.)
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:57 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4