Zach Randolph gets alot of hate, too much undeservingly I belive. Since Pippen and Sheed left the Blazers have fallen apart, and their only bright spot has been Randolph. He may be a piss-poor defender but is he any worse a defender than steve nash?(a 2 time MVP)I cant believe when people say he is a lazy player, no player who lazy averages 20+ and gets over 10 boards a game is lazy, to do that in the NBA is very hard especially in the western confererence where great big man are aplenty(Brand,Duncan,KG,Stoudemire,etc.) I'm not saying he is a hofer but he is a great player, just because a guy cant play defense doesn't make him a bad player. I believe he will excel under Isiah Thomas(who is a great coach but not so great a GM) and playing with a great passer like Stephon Marbury(who has impressed me overall with his performance this season even with less playing time and next year will get back his minutes), Jamal Crawford,Renaldo Balkman,and Eddy Curry(who while not a great overall basketball player is a very good post player who may end up a 20+ ppg scorer next season)
I've always been impressed with Zach Randolph's versatility on the offensive end and have never showed any hatred towards him. I think most of the criticism towards him comes from his work ethic and personal 'issues' rather than his basketball. The 20/10 will probabely no longer be existent next year when he will be playing with David Lee, Eddy Curry, and Renaldo Belkman but he still should be a great offensive big-man.
He isn't THAT lazy. Seriously, like Prime Time said anyone who can be that much of a beast can't be too lazy. He's a nice addition to the Knicks. It's not like Frye was any better of a defender, nor Francis. They had nothing to lose IMO, it was worth it.
His defense in Portland wasn't a problem because that team was very young, and some of the guys around him could play defense (if not great defense, it was better than his). Now in New York he's being paired up with Eddy Curry in the paint. Sure, both of them are good scorers in the post, but they can't do much else. Neither one of them can defend, and that creates a problem. I really don't expect both of them to put up 20+ points a night next season because of all the players that need the ball on that team. Curry will get his touches, as will Marbury, Crawford, etc., so I don't see Randolph AND Curry producing as much as they did last year.
People are overly critical of him. Sure he needs to improve defensively, but he's solid in every other aspect of the game. He brings a lot to the table.
He's a hell of a player, but calling him a fruitloop is an understament. He's a guy that does a couple things so damn well, it's just dissapointing to see his game not develop.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BottomOfDaMapTX @ Jul 8 2007, 05:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People are overly critical of him. Sure he needs to improve defensively, but he's solid in every other aspect of the game. He brings a lot to the table.</div> Bad defender, bad shotblocker, bad passer, takes too many shots, questionable attitude. He has a lot of holes in his game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jul 9 2007, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He's a hell of a player, but calling him a fruitloop is an understament. He's a guy that does a couple things so damn well, it's just dissapointing to see his game not develop. Bad defender, bad shotblocker, bad passer, takes too many shots, questionable attitude. He has a lot of holes in his game.</div>his attitude's fine, hes not a bad factor in the locker room, its his off-court issues that brought his trade value way down...hes a black hole in the offense. If u pass to him, either he will shoot or waste more than half of the shot clock doing jab-steps. I love watching him work down the defenders, but it can be frustrating watching him jab his foot at the defenders for half the shot clock.I still like zach randolph. It will be really interesting to see if he can be effective with curry
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jul 8 2007, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zach Randolph gets alot of hate, too much undeservingly I belive. Since Pippen and Sheed left the Blazers have fallen apart, and their only bright spot has been Randolph. He may be a piss-poor defender but is he any worse a defender than steve nash?(a 2 time MVP)</div>He may not be a worse defender than Nash as far as skill wise, but at the very least, Nash try's to be a decent defensive player. Randolph doesn't try on the defensive end, and just lets players do what they want down low. I saw him let Dwight Howard and Battie go a few times, without even trying to jump and stop these two from shooting or scoring.As for lone bright spot, only like two seasons has he shown to be a bright spot for the team. Last year, and the first year after Pippen and Rasheed Wallace left. Other than those two years, he has been hurt one season because of his poor conditioning, and being overweight. It is well known that overweight players are more likely to get hurt due to the grueling schedule of the NBA. Then the season before last he averaged 18 and 8, which are well below what he should have been averaging. He had the skills and the talent to be a 23 and 10 player like this year, but was to lasy to actually try for rebounds and work on the offensive end to be better.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I cant believe when people say he is a lazy player, no player who lazy averages 20+ and gets over 10 boards a game is lazy, to do that in the NBA is very hard especially in the western confererence where great big man are aplenty(Brand,Duncan,KG,Stoudemire,etc.) I'm not saying he is a hofer but he is a great player, just because a guy cant play defense doesn't make him a bad player</div>Part of why everyone calls him a lasy player, is because of his defense. He doesn't want to try on defense, he doesn't hustle back down the court on defense sometimes, he doesn't hustle after loose balls. There have been some times in his career, where it was made known, that he showed up fat and out of playing shape for that season, which is something a lasy player does. It's not all about the stats you put up, when he's taking 20 shots a game, 23 points shouldn't be that hard for a low post player. It's on the defensive end, and when he doesn't have the ball or the chance to get the ball, that he is lasy and unwilling to try hard.Maybe the best case of all that goes to him being not as good as you would think despite his stats, and proof he is a lasy player. Even with him averaging 23 and 10 this past season, the Blazers still traded him. Why would they trade Randolph, when Francis's contract is bad also, do it's not like they did a ton better with salary conditions when they traded Randolph. Even if it was a salary move, if he was worth it, he wouldn't have been traded. Obviously they don't like his black hole, ball hoging nature, combined with a lasy attitude and poor defense. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I believe he will excel under Isiah Thomas(who is a great coach but not so great a GM) and playing with a great passer like Stephon Marbury(who has impressed me overall with his performance this season even with less playing time and next year will get back his minutes), Jamal Crawford,Renaldo Balkman,and Eddy Curry(who while not a great overall basketball player is a very good post player who may end up a 20+ ppg scorer next season)</div>Stephon Marbury might be able to get alot of assists, but he is not a great passer. Great Passer's make people around them better, and so far, no one has been made better by Stephon Marbury's presence on the court. Reason being, is because people don't know when he is going to pass the ball and when he is going to shoot, so generally the players around him are not as active. That is why teams like the Nets and Suns have gotten better when he leaves, and point guards that are actually great passers have come in. The players know where to be to get the ball, and they move to get to those spots. He is not going to make Randolph a better player, infact, Randolph might be worse for Marbury being there.That Knicks team is going to be worse in my opinion, not better. Randolph will provide another person in the post, that gets the ball and doesn't want to pass out. Like Blazerspwnu said, Randolph either shoots as soon as he gets the ball, or holds the ball forever trying to get an open shot. He does nothing to help the ball keep moving, and provides a third chucker in the starting lineup along with Marbury, and Curry. They won't be able to play up-tempo with Curry AND Randolph out there like they did last year. That means it will be a half court game, where defense usually tends to mean alot. Weak defensive teams usually don't do well in half court systems. This team has NO defense, especially with Randolph and Curry in the post. They also don't have any consistent three point shooters to take pressure off of Curry and Randolph in the post. Crawford, Marbury, and Richardson are all inconsistent three point shooters at the best. However, Even if those guys were three point shooters, they wouldn't take pressure off or Randolph and Curry, because it is well known that Curry and Randolph are not going to pass back out to the three point shoots. I see no reason to think this team will be better, I think they will alot worse.
Now Randolph is an underachiever on defense, but it's hardly fair to compare his D to Steve Nash!Come on now, there's bad, and then there's awful. Awful defenders can be fun to watch, though. A laugh a minute.
I agree that it's stupid to compare their defense, because it completely avoids the issue. Randolph is bad at everything besides rebounding and scoring. He doesn't shoot for a high percentage, doesn't defend well, blah blah blah. Steve Nash isn't a good defender or rebounder, but he does everything else better. And as Valo said, he tries. I've seen him block Shaq from behind before. He's not a good defender, because most guards are faster laterally than he is. However, he is active on defense, which is better than just sitting there.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (valo35 @ Jul 10 2007, 08:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That Knicks team is going to be worse in my opinion, not better. Randolph will provide another person in the post, that gets the ball and doesn't want to pass out. Like Blazerspwnu said, Randolph either shoots as soon as he gets the ball, or holds the ball forever trying to get an open shot. He does nothing to help the ball keep moving, and provides a third chucker in the starting lineup along with Marbury, and Curry. They won't be able to play up-tempo with Curry AND Randolph out there like they did last year. That means it will be a half court game, where defense usually tends to mean alot. Weak defensive teams usually don't do well in half court systems. This team has NO defense, especially with Randolph and Curry in the post. They also don't have any consistent three point shooters to take pressure off of Curry and Randolph in the post. Crawford, Marbury, and Richardson are all inconsistent three point shooters at the best. However, Even if those guys were three point shooters, they wouldn't take pressure off or Randolph and Curry, because it is well known that Curry and Randolph are not going to pass back out to the three point shoots. I see no reason to think this team will be better, I think they will alot worse.</div>The 2 things the Knicks need is a go-to scorer and a good rebounder. Randolph fits those needs. Curry has no versatility whatsoever, and I feel his post repetoire is very limited. Randolph is much more versatile with his range and moves down low. Sure, he is somewhat of a black hole, but you will get 23PPG on 47-50% shooting. Marbury isn't a chucker, and Crawford has surprisingly very good playmaking ability (especially when it comes to feeding Curry). The team has never been uptempo, so I don't see Randolph hurting the team in that area. With 4 starters able to create for themselves, this should be a pretty potent offense. And thankfully the 2 perimeter players are more than willing to pass to the open man so ball movement won't be as much of a problem as people are making it out to be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jul 10 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree that it's stupid to compare their defense, because it completely avoids the issue. Randolph is bad at everything besides rebounding and scoring. He doesn't shoot for a high percentage, doesn't defend well, blah blah blah. Steve Nash isn't a good defender or rebounder, but he does everything else better. And as Valo said, he tries. I've seen him block Shaq from behind before. He's not a good defender, because most guards are faster laterally than he is. However, he is active on defense, which is better than just sitting there.</div>The example was clearly used to state that it's ok to be lousy on defense and still be a good player, so I don't think it was that off the mark. Nash DID win the MVP, and so did Nowitzki, and neither one of them is a competent defensive player. I disagreed with those votes, but I won't go so far as to say that those guys aren't great players. They are, and so the comparison makes some sense, though the defensive comparison is going too far, in my opinion.Further, Randolph doesn't shoot a bad percentage. Not great, but not bad either. He's right about in the middle of the top 20 scorers from last year, at .467. And as overstated as the 20-10 bar might be, there were all of 4 other guys in the league that managed it last year, so I think he does those two things pretty well. He needs to become a better defender and passer, which I think he can do. We'll see.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jordanisoverrated @ Jul 11 2007, 01:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The example was clearly used to state that it's ok to be lousy on defense and still be a good player, so I don't think it was that off the mark. Nash DID win the MVP, and so did Nowitzki, and neither one of them is a competent defensive player. I disagreed with those votes, but I won't go so far as to say that those guys aren't great players. They are, and so the comparison makes some sense, though the defensive comparison is going too far, in my opinion.Further, Randolph doesn't shoot a bad percentage. Not great, but not bad either. He's right about in the middle of the top 20 scorers from last year, at .467. And as overstated as the 20-10 bar might be, there were all of 4 other guys in the league that managed it last year, so I think he does those two things pretty well. He needs to become a better defender and passer, which I think he can do. We'll see.</div>Ugh, I understand what the intention of the comparison was, but it's not a good comparison because as I said, Nash is good at almost everything else he does. He doesn't rebound that well, but he shouldn't anyway given his size. The comparison makes sense if you want to look at it in a hypothetical perspective. Okay, Nash is a great player even though he's bad defensively, therefore other players can be great players while being bad defensively. The problem is that Randolph ISN'T GREAT. You see how the comparison is stupid now?His percentage isn't bad? For a PF, yeah, it is. Let's compare him to some other PF's from this past seasonirk - .502 (keep in mind, he's a jumpshooter)Amare - .575Dwight Howard - .603Bosh - .496Duncan - .546Drew Gooden - .473 (jumpshots as well)Varejao - .476Kwame Brown - .591Gasol - .538Need I go on? If you compare him to guys like Gilbert Arenas and Ben Gordon who shoot more jumpers, then yes, his % is okay. Compared to guys that actually play his position, it isn't good. Yes, you can argue that he got double/triple-teamed in Portland, but that's partly because he's a blackhole and doesn't pass the ball.I will agree that 20 and 10 is impressive, but I kinda doubt he will get that in NY.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jul 11 2007, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His percentage isn't bad? For a PF, yeah, it is.</div>It really isn't. It's better than Jermaine O'Neal, almost identical to KG's, and only 3% lower than Bosh. Considering a good portion of Randolph's game is his midrange jumpshot, it's understandable. I'd rather have him as my scorer than 4 of those guys you mentioned, so the FG % isn't important to bring up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Jul 11 2007, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It really isn't. It's better than Jermaine O'Neal, almost identical to KG's, and only 3% lower than Bosh. Considering a good portion of Randolph's game is his midrange jumpshot, it's understandable. I'd rather have him as my scorer than 4 of those guys you mentioned, so the FG % isn't important to bring up.</div>My intention in saying pointing out those players was not to say that they were better all-around players, it was to say that they have higher percentages than he does. Drew Gooden and Varejao are not exactly "good" offensive threats, yet they are on about the same level. I don't disagree that I would rather have Randolph than those two and Kwame. I can only assume you wouldn't want Pau, but I'm not sure I could agree on that.KG had a pretty down year in FG%, while Zach had an average year. KG also has a lot of other things going for him.I don't really like Jermaine O'Neal either, so that's pretty much meaningless to me.He is definitely at least below average.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jul 11 2007, 02:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My intention in saying pointing out those players was not to say that they were better all-around players, it was to say that they have higher percentages than he does. Drew Gooden and Varejao are not exactly "good" offensive threats, yet they are on about the same level. I don't disagree that I would rather have Randolph than those two and Kwame. I can only assume you wouldn't want Pau, but I'm not sure I could agree on that.KG had a pretty down year in FG%, while Zach had an average year. KG also has a lot of other things going for him.I don't really like Jermaine O'Neal either, so that's pretty much meaningless to me.He is definitely at least below average.</div>I know what your intention was, but in the end he is a scorer who shoots a better % than half the other top 15 scorers in the league. Gooden and Varejao are not even the 3rd scoring options on their own team and are able to mooch off Bron/Hughes. Brown is not an offensive threat whatsoever.As far as who I'd want Zach over (in terms of scoring, nothing else), I'd want him over Gooden/Varejao/Brown/Howard. Howard doesn't have much of an offensive arsenal, no range, and can't carry a team with his scoring like Randolph can.I really don't look at it as his FG % compared to other players at his position, but rather who plays his style and how he ranks among the other top scorers in the league. His FG % definately isn't amazing, but I would call it average.
Well, anyway. I don't think we disagree that much, but I am rather surprised that you'd want Randolph over Howard. It interests me, at least. I guess they aren't really that far apart.
[quote name='Nitro1118' post='407916' date='Jul 11 2007, 01:15 AM']The 2 things the Knicks need is a go-to scorer and a good rebounder. Randolph fits those needs. Curry has no versatility whatsoever, and I feel his post repetoire is very limited. Randolph is much more versatile with his range and moves down low. Sure, he is somewhat of a black hole, but you will get 23PPG on 47-50% shooting.[/quote]This is completely wrong, and not accurate at all. The Knicks two main needs was someone that could play defense, and an outside shooter. They don't have any outside shooters that will hit consistently, and they have no defense. They had scoring and rebounding, they were one of the two best rebounding teams in the league last year, and they have go-to scorers in Marbury, Curry, and Crawford. All three of those guys combined are capable enough to carry an offense. Unfortunately Marbury and Crawford's game involve attacking the rim off the dribble, and Curry's game is down low. They don't have a three point shooter to draw defenses out, which is why teams like Indiana was able to go to zone against the Knicks and do damage. Rebounding, and a go-to scorer is not what they needed, they had both of those last year.As for that 47-50 percent, it's not proven I am going to get that, nor is it proven that the Knicks will get the same 23 ppg scorer. Last year was the first year he ever averaged that many points per game, because the two seasons prior to that he averaged 18 points per game. His field goal percentage's the two seasons prior to this past season has been 43.6 percent, and 44.8%. His rebounding the past two seaons have been up at 8 rebounds per game, and 9 rebounds per game. So It's not proven at all that they are going to have a 23 point, 10 rebound, 47 percent shooter. He doesn't try hard every year, and he really does nothing to make a team better by himself. The two post players hold the ball for long amounts of time, Marbury might not be a chucker as I said it, but in the half court he likes to hold onto the ball for long periods of time. He is not a great playmaker because of how long he controls the flow of the ball, and how bored his teams get of him keeping the ball. Randolph and Curry do not pass back out to much when they get the ball down low, especially Randolph. So that is even more ball movement not happening, as their drawing of double teams only hurts them and the team since they don't like to kick back out. Most of the other 15 scorers in the league are not perimeter players either. Look at all of the low post people in the league, and they all shoot better percentages, minus Jermaine O'neal. Kevin Garnett's is still higher than Randolph's, Bosh's is higher 3% is kind of a big difference in basketball shooting percentages(think about it, in 3 more shots per game, he makes only one more shot than Bosh does per game), Dirk Nowitzki's is up a good 4 % and he plays the perimeter, Shaq, Eddy Curry, Elton Brand, Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, Amare Stoudemire, Tim Duncan, Yao Ming, and a great deal of other big men all shoot better percentages than Zach Randolph. There is also a good group of them that take a good deal of mid range jump shots, just like Randolph does, and still shoot a better percentage. So his shooting percentage is not very average at all. You might want Zach's scoring over Howards, but overall you would be crazy to want Zach Randolph over Howard. Howard might not be the best of scorers, but he can still average up to 17 points per game, and is still making strides in his offensive game. However, Howard is still a superb rebounder, you can anchor a defense around him better, is stronger, faster, more explosive, hustles better, has a better attitude and will actually pass the ball when he gets a double team. Howard is a much better option to have than Randolph is. Randolph's scoing doesn't do enough to cancel out the other parts of Howard's game. I wouldn't call it average. He isn't the only one that uses the mid-range jump shot to set up his game. Dirk Nowitzki uses the three point line to set up his scoring, Tim Duncan, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, alot of these guys shoot from the mid range a good deal, and still have a good deal of a better shooting percentage than Zach Randolph. It's not like everyone of his shots are mid range shots, and even if they were, it's not impressive that a big man should have to take all of his shots in the mid-range. If he was better, he would find a way to get better position and score more points closer to the paint, so he's more effective when he gets the ball.Zach Randolph really isn't that great in my opinion, I don't see why anyone would want him the more I look at him, and look at his negative side. Having him with other people that don't distrubute the ball well, and a team that doesn't pass the ball well, is not a great thing.
[quote name='valo35' post='408150' date='Jul 11 2007, 07:01 AM']This is completely wrong, and not accurate at all. The Knicks two main needs was someone that could play defense, and an outside shooter. They don't have any outside shooters that will hit consistently, and they have no defense. They had scoring and rebounding, they were one of the two best rebounding teams in the league last year, and they have go-to scorers in Marbury, Curry, and Crawford. All three of those guys combined are capable enough to carry an offense. Unfortunately Marbury and Crawford's game involve attacking the rim off the dribble, and Curry's game is down low. They don't have a three point shooter to draw defenses out, which is why teams like Indiana was able to go to zone against the Knicks and do damage. Rebounding, and a go-to scorer is not what they needed, they had both of those last year.[/quote]In games last season, when the Knicks needed points, they often failed as they had no one that they can truly go to. Curry is not reliable and if all else fails teams can play hack-a-Curry due to his poor FT shooting, Marbury and Crawford are streak scorers, etc... They need a guy who, no matter the defense, can get his 20+. On a team with very little ball movement, this will be necassary. The rebounding came from David Lee, but their starting lineup frontcourt had little rebounding. With Curry one of the worst rebounding centers in the league, they need a guy who can grab 10RPG next to him. He was a 20/10 player in 03-04(on 49% shooting), and 19/10 player in 04-05. He had a down year in 05-06, and just had the best season of his career. Is he absolutely proven? No, but they gave up absolute sh*t to get him....more than worth the risk. Luckily for the Knicks, all 4 players are capable of 20PPG. Marbury and Crawford do hang on to the ball long, but they DO have good court vision and will find the open player. Unless the Knicks totally revamped, this ball movement problem wouldn't change. Instead, they upgraded to the philosophy already in place. KG's FG % is less than 1% better, so that makes little difference. Bosh's is higher, but if you factor in free throws, Randolph takes only 1-2 more shots per game to get 1 more point. Dirk is the best scoring big man in the league, so of course he has a better FG %. Curry and Howard both are not the scorers Randolph is, so that's a moot point. Those other players are the cream of the crop, and for the Knicks to get a scorer in their realm for such a sh*t price tag, it is a great move..But, you are looking at it differently than I am. You are looking at it in terms of big men...I'm looking at the top 15 players as scorers, not big or small men. And when you look at it that way, Randolph is in the middle of the pack in FG %. Bottom line is he is one of the premier scoring big men in the league. Only 2 other big men (Yao and Dirk) scored more than him...that's impressive no matter how you cut it. As I said, scoring only, nothing else. Randolph also doesn't have a great PG or teammates to set him up/take pressure off him like most other great big men do. He is a 47-49% scorer, and that is right in the middle of the pack of the best scorers in the league. I don't care what way you cut it, 23PPG on 47% shooting, on a team that bad, is pretty impressive. He may not be a better scorer than some other great big men, but he most certainly deserves mention in that group.As for that last part, you can say the same about most great scorers in the league...bottom line is most of these guys have the talent to do what they want, but their styles and mentality swing their game to a way they want, not to what their talent excels at. If Randolph, Dirk, T-Mac, or LeBron played to their talent rather than what they wanted to do, they would all be better and more efficient scorers. The team didn't distribute the ball to begin with. They are just upgrading the team by adding an all star caliber player to the mix. The playing style and such won't be any different than last year...but now they got a much, much bigger threat down low.
