The Knicks they havent made huge changes, its the same team as last year, and the team chemistry is just not there.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">The Knicks. They have a lot of talent and no chemistry. They didn't have success last year with a HOF coach, and personally, I don't think Isiah is going to do much better. He's going to give them more freedom offensively, but even if they do score, I don't think they're going to be stopping much of anyone. Sure, they brought in Jeffries as a stopper and drafted Balkman for that reason as well, but outside of them, no one plays very good defense on the team. They're going to struggle, miss the playoffs, and for the 2nd straight year, not have a lottery pick to show for it.</div> Well how about the fact their "Hall of Fame" coach had 42 starting lineups? The reason why there was no chemistry was mostly because of Brown who played the team so inconsistently. Many of the times Brown played someone 30 minutes one night, then didn't play him at all the next night. Incidents like that occured frequently. That's not to mention how Brown destroyed his player's confidence by publicly attacking them in the media. The biggest issue for the Knicks last year was Larry Brown plain and simple. Isiah has a better grasp of the team he created, so he should be more successful. That's not to say the Knicks won't be bad, I just don't think they will have the worst record. Last year they were terrible and they didn't have the worst record. I'm going with Portland.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Sheldan Williams and Zaza Pachulia will be solid in the frontcourt, giving them a nice tandem there.</div> You forgot Lorenzen Wright. ATL can possibly have a nice squad this season.
For the same points MrJ argued, I too do not think the Knicks will come last. But I do hope they do come last or near there. Only because the Bulls can switch picks. But personally I think Golden State is a small possiblity. Same team as last year, but will get worse the longer Baron is there.
The Knicks were better before they hired Larry Brown. I doubt it's them. Atlanta's always a contender but it's probably Portland again.
Why do teams knock the Hawks? They have a ton of talent and have potential to be pretty good and maybe knock on that playoff door this year. And with the Knicks....I just think they have too many players that need to have the ball to be successful. That team is going to have chemistry issues galore, no matter how many lineups they throw out there, be it one lineup all year or 50. They don't have a true pg to set others up. They're best players can't be effective without the ball. And most of all, this game is played with only one basketball, and with all the people on the Knicks that need the ball (Curry, Q, Rose, Francis, Marbury, Crawford, etc.) to be effective....that's just begging to have chemistry issues. And if you have chemistry issues, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
I don?t think the Knicks are going to be nearly as bad as everyone thinks. The Knicks have talent make no mistake about it, that talent simply did not accept Brown as a coach the players see Thomas as a father figure and will likely respond well to him, especially with his job on the line. I can see the Knicks pulling out 35-40 wins this season easily. I hope I am wrong, because I want the Bulls to have a chance at Greg Oden however if I had to pick which team will have the worst record I will go ahead and say the Portland Trail Blazers. They still have two huge cancers in there locker room (Randolph and Miles), they lack veteran leadership, and are playing in a tough western conference. Outside of them, I really feel like the Hawks will be another team that will have a record worst than that of the Knicks. The Hawks have plenty of talent. Unfortunately, most of that talent plays small forward. They still lack a quality starting point guard. I?m a big Claxton fan, but I don?t see him as a long term solution for them at point guard. He is better suited off the bench. Any how let me just reiterate how much I am rooting for the Knicks to suck this year, but with that said I think they will be one of those teams that land a 6-12 pick in the lottery.
I think Portland isn't going to be the worst team. They have two great young players. Roy and Aldrige. They are going to be ok. Atl may suck. But I am going with Knicks. Because they sucked the year before. They didn't get anything in draft. So they will still suck IMO.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">Why do teams knock the Hawks? They have a ton of talent and have potential to be pretty good and maybe knock on that playoff door this year.</div>Every year they have a ton of talent and potential. I'm not a stat person (for the same reason stated) but the year before they had Walker getting 19/9/3 and Harrington getting 17/7/3 with josh smith, tyronne lue, josh childress, tony delk. All that shouldn't produce a top 3 worst record. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">And with the Knicks....I just think they have too many players that need to have the ball to be successful. That team is going to have chemistry issues galore, no matter how many lineups they throw out there, be it one lineup all year or 50. They don't have a true pg to set others up. They're best players can't be effective without the ball. And most of all, this game is played with only one basketball, and with all the people on the Knicks that need the ball (Curry, Q, Rose, Francis, Marbury, Crawford, etc.) to be effective....that's just begging to have chemistry issues. And if you have chemistry issues, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.</div>The Knicks had a lot of talent and a better record before Larry Brown. He's the only reason the Knicks did as bad as they did. He had ?42? differenst starting lineups, how are they supposed to gain chemistry or consistancy. Marbury may not be the guy that makes your team better, but for the Knicks to stand any sorta chance, they're gonna need him to have big games. His production really dropped off under LB. They won't have the worst record.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Umair15:</div><div class="quote_post">I think Portland isn't going to be the worst team. They have two great young players. Roy and Aldrige. They are going to be ok. Atl may suck. But I am going with Knicks. Because they sucked the year before. They didn't get anything in draft. So they will still suck IMO.</div> They have Roy and Aldirdge, but not much else. I think they are either going to be mediocre or down right terrible. If they got rid of Miles and Randolph I think they could have a nice season with the young guys they have. Something around 33 wins, but if they keep those two it will be a soap opera all year?
yea thats about right..but they wont have the worst record though. Like you said, they need to get younger to get better.
The one thing that hurts the Knicks, and the Hawks for that matter, is the conference they play in. For a change, I really think the East has a chance to be the superior overall conference. Because how deep the East looks to be this year, I think both teams will struggle. However, I still really like what the Hawks have done. They got a steady, ultra quick PG in Claxton. They have their emerging superstar in Joe Johnson that will step up and be the leader on this squad. And after them, they have all sorts talent everywhere. Josh Smith could emerge as a 15/7/2/2 type of guy this year. Marvin could have a huge season this year if he gets the starting job. Pachulia should be steady once again. Shelden Williams will be solid for them, whether he comes off the bench or starts. Salim Stoudamire will be a good bench guy for them again, same with Childress. They have talent to say the least. The Knicks have talent as well, but I just don't know about them. Their defense is going to be awful. No one outside of Jared Jeffries is worth a damn on defense. Both their PGs (Francis and Marbury) need the ball to be effective and neither make their teammates better. Their big man in the middle, Eddy Curry, is a good scorer, but that's it. His defense is terrible and he's a pathetic rebounder for a guy with his size and strength. The team in general has too many guards, as I note that BKS said that the Hawks have too many SFs, well, the Knicks have too many guards. To name them for you....Marbury, Francis, Crawford, Nate, Jalen Rose, Q, and Collins. Beyond that, they completely killed their draft, taking Balkman in the first round when they could have gotten him as an undrafted rookie FA. Plus, they're still burdened with a ton of horrible and unappealing contracts, to name a couple, Malik Rose, Mo Taylor, and Jerome James. All in all, I just don't like their roster. They have too many guards and no depth at the big man position. Outside of Channing Frye and David Lee, with 4/5 depth. Sure, they have Mo Taylor, but he's nothing special, same with Malik Rose and Jerome James. As I stated earlier, this team has too many "me first" players and players that need the ball to be effective. As I also stated, there's only one ball, and that's not a good thing for these guys. I just foresee a ton of chemistry problems because of this, and I think that's going to kill their chances at doing anything.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Every year they have a ton of talent and potential. I'm not a stat person (for the same reason stated) but the year before they had Walker getting 19/9/3 and Harrington getting 17/7/3 with josh smith, tyronne lue, josh childress, tony delk. All that shouldn't produce a top 3 worst record.</div> Are you joking? Josh Smith - rookie Josh Childress - rookie Antoine Walker - padding stats, traded for nothing after 53 games Al Harrington - 66 games played Tony Delk - 56 games played Tyronn Lue - 49 games, traded for him I mean the guys you mentioned aren't even players anyone would mention to support a team not losing. If a team with Tmac can only win 21 games, of course a team like this can win less. In addition to that, their depth was: Shoot first PG/Shoot first PG SF/SF/SF/underized PF Perimeter Center/Perimeter Center/Fake Center In terms of "being young" I would say they had "talent", because of Smith, Diaw, Childress and Harrington being young guys that can develop, but in terms of actually winning, please, that is not a "talented" lineup by any means. If anyone can explain how: PG: Kenny Anderson - Lue SG: Childress-Diaw SF: Harrington (Smith later) PF: Walker (Harrington later) C: (Collier-Ekezie) with your main scorer (who was terribly inefficient anyways) gone for the last 29 games, and all your other scorers missing games is a good lineup, I'll give them a cookie. Of course let's not neglect that Obinna Ekezie started 31 games, Drobnjak was their other C, and their bench had studs like Royal Ivery I think their "ton of talent" is extremely overatted. Even when they had JT and Shareef, they were far from having " a ton of talent". <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">They have Roy and Aldirdge, but not much else. I think they are either going to be mediocre or down right terrible. If they got rid of Miles and Randolph I think they could have a nice season with the young guys they have. Something around 33 wins, but if they keep those two it will be a soap opera all year…</div> Those young guys would have to play REAL well for them to pull off 33 wins in the West without Randolph. Who would be the #1 option(s), Roy and LaMarcus? Maybe Webster? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Outside of them, I really feel like the Hawks will be another team that will have a record worst than that of the Knicks. The Hawks have plenty of talent. Unfortunately, most of that talent plays small forward. They still lack a quality starting point guard. I’m a big Claxton fan, but I don’t see him as a long term solution for them at point guard. He is better suited off the bench. Any how let me just reiterate how much I am rooting for the Knicks to suck this year, but with that said I think they will be one of those teams that land a 6-12 pick in the lottery.</div> Really? PG: Speedy Claxton | Tyronn Lue | Salim Stoudamire SG: Joe Johnson | Josh Childress | Salim Stoudamire SF: Josh Smith | Marvin Williams | Josh Childress | Donta Smith PF: Marvin Williams | Shelden Williams | Josh Smith | Estaban Batista | Solomon Jones? C: Zaza Pachulia | Lorenzen Wright | Estaban Batista Their SF's are: Josh Smith (SF/PF), Marvin Williams (SF/PF), and Josh Childress, that's only 3 players, and two are capable PF's that will get minutes there. I think they've done well to move their talent away from just being F's, the removal of Al Harrington definately helps in that cause.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">They have Roy and Aldirdge, but not much else. I think they are either going to be mediocre or down right terrible. If they got rid of Miles and Randolph I think they could have a nice season with the young guys they have. Something around 33 wins, but if they keep those two it will be a soap opera all year</div> Keeping Miles and/or Randolph will actually mean more wins for the Blazers as oppose to more if they trade them. They will likely ask for an expiring contract+decent player+picks in return for Randolph, so if they do trade him, who's left as their scorer? Miles is still left there who can score in a variety of ways that dont include shooting from the outside, but besides nobody else is proven. We can bank on Roy producing, but nobody knows how much. Miles+Roy+inexperience roster does not equal 33 wins, nor does Roy+an even more experience roster. Since you aren't factoring in the players that the Blazers receive in trades for those two, I assume they're going to be non factors or marginale impact players. When was the last time you saw a team with a bunch of inexperience young players win 33 games? Also, considering that they're in the west this is highly unlikely. Randolph and Miles are two legit scorers, controversial or not, and trading them away won't boost their win total to 33 wins.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting P.A.P.:</div><div class="quote_post">Keeping Miles and/or Randolph will actually mean more wins for the Blazers as oppose to more if they trade them. They will likely ask for an expiring contract+decent player+picks in return for Randolph, so if they do trade him, who's left as their scorer? Miles is still left there who can score in a variety of ways that dont include shooting from the outside, but besides nobody else is proven. We can bank on Roy producing, but nobody knows how much. Miles+Roy+inexperience roster does not equal 33 wins, nor does Roy+an even more experience roster. </div> By trading them you may not get equal value in return, but you eliminate to people who are harming your team locker room with their attitude thus eliminating all destractions and allowing your players to focus on souley basketball. Although, I am in neither the Blazers locker room, nor do I know what is happening behind closed doors. We saw with the Eagles last season how one player no matter how talented during a game, can ruin a team with his attitude. Just my 2 cents...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Best Kept Secret:</div><div class="quote_post">By trading them you may not get equal value in return, but you eliminate to people who are harming your team locker room with their attitude thus eliminating all destractions and allowing your players to focus on souley basketball. Although, I am in neither the Blazers locker room, nor do I know what is happening behind closed doors. We saw with the Eagles last season how one player no matter how talented during a game, can ruin a team with his attitude. Just my 2 cents...</div>This is one thing I really don't like, and that's blaming poor performance on a players attitude in the locker room. That shows the sign of a weak team if you ask me. Take a look at the Lakers. Kobe and Shaq were always feuding, but they were professionals about it and didn't let it effect the way they played on the court. Why can't more teams do that? Let the offcourt life be just that, offcourt, and just focus on the game when you're on the court. And on a note about the Eagles....that team was just bad last year. Too much passing, bad defense, and then McNabb went down just to add insult to injury on a team that wasn't going anywhere as it was.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting og15:</div><div class="quote_post">Are you joking?</div>It was a joke, obviously u didn't get the point... Next time save yourself the life story you posted and make sure you understand.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">The Knicks have talent as well, but I just don't know about them. Their defense is going to be awful. No one outside of Jared Jeffries is worth a damn on defense. Both their PGs (Francis and Marbury) need the ball to be effective and neither make their teammates better.</div> The Knicks are better off with Marbury than without him. Maybe not Francis, but Marbury has consistently been an effective point guard for the Knicks. When he got injured for the 22 games last season (something very uncharacteristic), the Knicks offense was absolutely lost. When you combine that with the fact Brown was absolutely horrible teaching the players the offense. Often times he would change one play multiple times a week. Francis came into a mess by February, so it's hard to tell how effective he will be next season. We should see how he performs with a training camp for a full season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The team in general has too many guards, as I note that BKS said that the Hawks have too many SFs, well, the Knicks have too many guards. To name them for you....Marbury, Francis, Crawford, Nate, Jalen Rose, Q, and Collins. </div> All of the players you named with the exception of Robinson can play at least two positions. Marbury, Francis, Crawford, and Collins can play point guard and shooting guard. Richardson can play the 2-3 while Rose can play 1-3. So our guards are versatile giving us more options. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Beyond that, they completely killed their draft, taking Balkman in the first round when they could have gotten him as an undrafted rookie FA.</div> I would rather have Marcus Williams, but Balkman's defense and energy will have an impact next season. Besides, if they took Williams, then you would probably criticize them for having too many guards <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Plus, they're still burdened with a ton of horrible and unappealing contracts, to name a couple, Malik Rose, Mo Taylor, and Jerome James. </div> Their contracts don't have anything to do with how successful they will be next season. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">All in all, I just don't like their roster. They have too many guards and no depth at the big man position. Outside of Channing Frye and David Lee, with 4/5 depth. Sure, they have Mo Taylor, but he's nothing special, same with Malik Rose and Jerome James. As I stated earlier, this team has too many "me first" players and players that need the ball to be effective. As I also stated, there's only one ball, and that's not a good thing for these guys. I just foresee a ton of chemistry problems because of this, and I think that's going to kill their chances at doing anything.</div> No depth in the front court? We have an improving David Lee and Channing Frye and Jared Jeffries and Eddy Curry. Those are 4 players who can play at least 20 minutes a game. That's not to mention Mo' Taylor, Malik Rose, and Jerome James. Those three are my least favorite Knicks, but they are valuable at times. The only "me-first" type of players on the Knicks are really Francis, Taylor, and maybe Nate Robinson, but other than that, no one else. People claim Marbury is selfish, but that has gotten old and he's been totally unselfis playing for the Knicks. Regardless of whether the Knicks are a good or bad team next year, it will be extremely unlikely for them to get the worst record in the league.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting NaKz:</div><div class="quote_post">For the same points MrJ argued, I too do not think the Knicks will come last. But I do hope they do come last or near there. Only because the Bulls can switch picks. But personally I think Golden State is a small possiblity. Same team as last year, but will get worse the longer Baron is there.</div> Have you even seen a Warriors game? The reason we sucked last year was beacuse in the time that Baron was injured our idiot coach relied way too heavily on Derek Fisher and refused to give Monta Ellis quality minutes or play the run'n'gun style that our team is obviously suited for. Baron when healthy is one of the best points in the league and helps our team a lot more than he hurts us.
