alphaorange

I am curious as to the fan's thinking. Since we need to improve our team and we have no room at the inn, who do we replace in the starting line-up?

We can assume its Marbury, JC, Qrich, Lee/Frye, and Curry. Since we are not good enough to contend, I am assuming we will look for starting material players. It seems most logical to me to draft a sf who can shoot the rock. Defense is a plus. I can't see JC going to the bench long term. Marbury isn't going anywhere. Collins needs to play more, and what about little Nate? If we draft Almond, it HAS to mean a trade because of our guard glut and the fact that all we have are ready to play. It's not a back-up center. If its a PF, it means that we will lose Frye and/or Lee. Starting SF seems to be the only real question mark and thats mainly because of Qrich health concerns.

I'm assuming that a shooter will need to be in the game in order to help Curry. That means someone goes to the bench and others get less minutes. Personally, I like JC off the bench if he's hot, and on it if he's not. Maybe a guy like Almond makes sense if JC goes. Otherwise, I think we should go to the 3 with a shooter.

ChosenFEW

well i think thats what everybody has been saying in the other draft threads. basically someone who can shoot and space the floor would be sufficient. if he's a 3 and plays defense would be a plus. but i dont think isiah would take a less capable shooter than lets say almond just because he plays the 3 and can shoot decent but isnt quite as good as almond.

isiah never really looks at position but more at tangibles and how they could help the team and play their role

__________________

alphaorange

whats the other side of the coin? If Almond comes, we know he is eventually intended to start as the 2. Who goes? It sure looks like Collins is the heir apparent to Marbury's position down the road.

TwinkieFoot

Everyone identifies our needs as being more perimeter shooters or some player that can serve as the defensive backbone of the team. In my opinion, the defender is needed much more than the shooter simply because we were 25th in defense last season.

Even so, I still consider the Knicks to be a young inexperienced team and poor defensive play is usually expected out of these kind of situations. I know alot of people don't remember this but the Spurs actually were not all that great on defense after they had to retool their roster after their first title. No one individual is going to take us from being one of the worst defensive teams in the league to being one of the best, so I kind of gave up on that kind of thinking. Individually speaking, we do not have any players on the roster who are not physically gifted enough to be considered good defenders. I think as the coaching staff of the Knicks, I'd just shift my emphasis to helping these guys communicate better on that end of the floor and continue to help them improve individually.

I think perhaps the biggest concern on our team might come at the starting 3 spot. I feel the team's main concern should be another player that can be a multi-faceted player, in particular, a ball mover. Last year, our starting lineup seemed to be stagnant mainly because we did not have players capable of creating motion in our offense. A ball handler and ball mover would give us more angles of attack and help us get the most out of our starting lineup. Last year, the team lost 29 games by a single digit difference so I doubt we'd need any major improvements. I'd basically look to keep things the same but would add a guy like Josh Childress to the 3 spot who can shoot very well, defend well and handle the ball well. I'd also hope that Channing Frye would look to add more leg strength to his game and focus more on developing his speed and agility to strengthen his face up game. It should also help him out big time on the defensive end of the floor as well because I do not recall him being a defensive liability last year compared to this year. If Frye doesn't manage to do so, I'd look to move him for a defensive intimidator like Chris Wilcox.

Personally, I'd look to draft the best player available at our pick because we don't necessarily have anything that we desperately need. I'd enjoy bringing in a potential guy because the player we draft likely isn't going to get very many minutes in the near future. I'd like a perimeter player who can start because I like the dimensions Crawford presents as a 6th man that are not so valuable as a starter.

TwinkieFoot

To be honest with you, I'd have no qualms getting rid of Quentin Richardson if Almond is as great as everyone makes him sound. As much as I respect Richardson as a player and as a person, I consider the Knicks building the best team possible as top priority. I would not want to get rid of Crawford because he has excellent chemistry with Curry and is one of the top 6th men in the NBA so it would seem Richardson would be the sacrificial lamb with his inconsistent health.

alphaorange

with parts of it. While JC is gifted enough to play defense, he is horrible. Nate didn't "d" up either, yet I believe he could. I also think defense is more of a team ideal to be successful and we were woeful at it. Curry was a main culprit though I don't think it is lack of talent or laziness. Focus, perhaps. Whatever it is, it is the same reason he doesn't pursue boards. Not a criticism, just a well documented observation. Be that as it may, he is certainly not alone. Frye was a swinging gate, as well. It has to start with the guards and Marbury picked it up. Outside of Collins, he was the only guard to get serious about it. I have no doubt Lee will become a solid defender, as well. They may have lost by single digits a ton of times but without qualifying that by knowing if they trailed big, never led, blew a lead...whatever...it is nearly meaningless. When teams got serious about taking Eddy out of the game....they did it. If you are going to make teams pay for focusing on him, you better make it as easy as possible for him to find a threat to pass to. That is why you really need 3 outside shooters, 2 of whom must be consistent, not streaky. SM is a bit streaky, Q is pretty good. I'm still hangin with my boy Nichols, though. He really seems to fit the bill minus great ball handling, which I believe will come. I must say that a H2O like Almonds is also intriguing. Trade some guys for an early 2nd and grab both.

TwinkieFoot

I think Crawford has stints where he plays pretty good defense. Unfortunately, he does not seems to lose focus on that end of the floor to often and is another reason why I'd look to keep him on the bench. I feel he's best defending the PG position but with Mardy playing as well as he has, I doubt Crawford will see many minutes there now or in the future.

I agree with you on Nate.

As for the fact the Knicks lost 29 games by single digit differences, they are significant because they obviously indicate that we had the talent to win those games. Most of those loses were about 5 points or less so I think it hints at the fact that this team only needs minor changes to win.

alphaorange

but remember...nobody really took us seriously. We were the classic "trap" game for nearly every team. I think it evens out. We were not close to be a good team. Could we become one? I sure hope so since I'm sick of following a loser.

ChosenFEW

I agree. In fact i wouldn't have qualms about getting rid of anybody as long as we're getting equal or better talent. now or down the road.

__________________