Petey

Now everyone is all over KG because of his interview. KG's team is underacheiving. Why does KG get a pass, and oh people's good side, while Marbury is put down a bit?

-Petey

Tersk

Because KG is the supposed golden guy of the NBA, if Jermaine O'Neal replaced KG we'd be hearing everyone say that JO can't lead his team

__________________

The True Essence

cause KG shows more heart. he got to the western conference finals last year, that game against the kings pretty much solidified that....and really its sprewell and cassell being *******es and putting themselves above the team. its not him. Here....it is steph. Its marbury having the problems with his teammates, we lost more games decided by 5 or less then anybody this season, and a big reason is cause he doesnt step up at the end.

sure his 30 point games are nice, but when hes scoreless the last 4 minutes and we lose...you gotta question his leadership. how many times have the knicks blown a fourth quarter lead?

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/SuperstarPt0/

Petey

Up into last year, they had never made it out of the 1st round either. They had to totally remake their team, spending so much money, their only other starter left not named KG (Wally) was moved to the bench as their 6th man.

If Thomas could find 2 suckers to make similar trades, don't think the Knicks would be much better too with Marbury?

-Petey

The True Essence

thats just it, KG did get criticism when he didnt pass the first round. they said he didnt step up in the 4th quarter and questioned his leadership skills. Isiah already built a decent team. this team should be around .500 regardless of the injuries. I do expect this team to be good by march 06, but because the player were gonna get is gonna be the go to guy instead of steph.......just looking at that paul pierce trade that is rumored with portland, you can only hope similar deals come around for us with the tim thomas expiring deal with sweetney or our draft pick or ariza or whoever. at least i hope the cba doesnt screw up this offseason and screws up the value of expiring deals.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/SuperstarPt0/

Petey

I think there will always be value in being able to cut salary... dumping a bad contract, even if there is no cap.

-Petey

Dre™

Because there is a negative stigma about Marbury that there isn't about KG. It's mostly media perception taken as truth by people. It's pretty much is fault that he's more unlikeable than otherwise. He's called out players, had a feud with Van Horn, and a bad vibe seemingly follows him everywhere he goes. I personally think he's just an unlucky guy, but it's different with KG.

Garnett for the most part is a lot more friendly with the media, seems a lot more down to earth, and his teams have always won. There were the sczierbiak and rickert incidents, but that falls under the "passion" category by his biggest supporters.

The differences between the two is that the Marbury's problems are usually, or at least thought to be, of his own doing, while Garnett's losing is "he doesn't have enough around him."

It's just the players' public perceptions that separate them.

__________________

SI Metman

KG has led his team to the playoffs constantly and put up great numbers and won MVPs, and his team made it all the way to the Conference Finals once he got some help.

Marbury has played for sub .500 teams, and each team he left became significantly better once he was traded.

Rashidi

KG is one of the top 20 players of all-time.

I wouldn't even put Marbury among the top 10 PGs of all-time.

urwhatueati8god

There you have it. Garnett still leads in the NBA in efficiency (32.26, 3.78 above the next highest in Nowitzki) and efficiency per 48 minutes (39.86, 3.87 above the next highest in Duncan). Marbury is nineteenth and thirty-seventh. Sweetney is better than him per forty-eight minutes.

__________________
I believe that you're saying how much you hate Saban in Chinese but my browser doesn't recognize Chinese characters.

Da Grinch

saying garnett is givien more lattitude because he is a better player is basically saying there is a double standard.

why would the lesser player be held up to the same winning standards as the better player , when everyone agrees he not as good so his chances of achieving it are obviously less.

how insane is that , to hold lets say rafer alston to the same standards as jason kidd, rafer is an avg. starting pg, kidd is one of the best of his generation, but if rafer doesn't win as much as kidd , he is a loser .

how silly is that?

marbury is much better than rafer but garnett is maybe the best player in the game and possibly the most gifted Lebron or no lebron

marbury could be on any given day be considered the 3rd best pg in the atlantic division (behind kidd and iverson who are great players in their own right) are there many days when garnet is considered the 3rd best power forward in the much stronger northwest division?

the double standard is obvious, to deny it is crazy. and worse than that its illogical.

__________________
"The country is full of good coaches. What it takes to win is a bunch of interested players."-Don Coryell, ex-San Diego Chargers Coach

Rashidi

Because the better player doesn't bring down the play level of his team like the lesser player does in this instance.

Marbury has never gotten out of the first round, and his teams miss the playoffs more often than not. KG's teams were at least a lock for the first round no matter how little help he had.

Comparing things based on divisional alignment rather than conference is a bit silly. What do the other Atlantic PGs have to do with winning? The Atlantic is atrocious. If KG were traded southwest would he suddenly become worse? I don't get that comparision. Iverson and Arenas were all-stars. Kidd and Francis were ahead of Marbury on that list.

1. Duncan
2. Garnett
3. Nowitzki

The way Dirk has played this year, I'd say Garnett has been 3rd quite often.

Furthermore, Marbury has brought these comparisions upon himself by declaring himself the best PG in the game.

knicksmsg33

Starbury's critics are mostly media speculation

everybody is concerned about "W"

everybody can't win all the time

and for Starbury to be successful, he needs a big man at either the 4 or 5,
with Amare he was playing very successful, but then came the trade and Nash just stepped into the situation when it was at it's height.

In the beginning of the season the knicks were supposed to be playing Uptempo ball and it was working good, but it seems some of the players weren't running and then abandoned that strategy and it caused their downfall with the bad defense they play. The knicks have to play Uptempo to be successful, no matter what

But overall Starbury should be taken out of the game in the 3'rd qrtr for about 5 mins and in the 4 th about another 5 mins to preserve his strength to make him more fresh on defense, and the team needs to stick to a strategy on defense.

But the media is on starbury case, like they are on artest for the brawl, they are like scapegoats, they were looking for marbury to fail, even the question they posed was designed to make such an effect, probably the nets payed them to ask that question

__________________
knicksmsg33

Petey

Garnett has only gotten out of the 1st round once. And is really making the first round more times, but getting bounced all those times except once better than what Marbury has brought?

-Petey