Wilt_The_Stilt

First, if Kobe goes there is no guarantee that Phil stays. He knows he won't win with what they get back. Therefore the tri issue is moot. And as a side note - Fisher, Lue, Hunter, Penberthy, Pargo, and Farmar have all been Laker point guards under Phil and the tri. And all are short. So really Crawfords height doesn't matter anyways.

But the real issue is that Crawford and Richardson aren't good enough to help the Lakers reach the playoffs and both are overpaid (Crawford goes till '10-11 when he will make 10 million) Buss isn't going to pay big bucks unless it is a star player like Marbury or helps them win.

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

TwinkieFoot

And who was the best triangle PG ever? 6-6 Ron Harper that was a gunner before he hurt his knee. The triangle offense is ideal for scoring PG's because it helps alleviate the responsibility of them having to find teammates and give them looks. By moving your body and moving the ball, you find yourself with pretty good looks at the basket through teamwork. Prototypical PG's that pass the ball might not be at their best in this system because your main strength, running an offense, is really hindered through the system. This means over aspects of the game play a more crucial role like rebounding the ball, shooting the ball with range, and defense. This is why guys like Derek Fisher fit in perfectly and why scorers do as well.

For the record, Pargo is 6-3, Hunter is 6-2 but with the arm length of a guy 6-6, and Lue and Farmer have not been confided in during their tenures as Lakers for a reason.

P.S., trading for Richardson has it's benefits because by trading for multiple contracts allow you to move the players you recieve easier than with one large contract. It is why the Kings moved Webber for 3 irrelevant role players when they did.

Wilt_The_Stilt

Like I said, if Kobe goes I think Phil is gone as well, which would render all this moot. But I will adress it anyways.

I don't think Harper was the best tri point guard ever. Put him on a tri team with no Jordan and Pippen and he is nothing more than an average player.

Exactly. He was a gunner before he came to the Bulls. He wasn't one while on the team. Crawford is still a gunner. And always will be.

Harper wasn't a scoring point guard with the Bulls, yet you said he is the best ever.

Actually it would improve the offensive . Notice how Phil values high IQ players? Players that move the ball well like Luke Walton? That is the same thing that a convential point would do (and do even better) but historically Phil has had his wing players initiate the offense (Pippen, Kobe, Odom, Walton) and the "point guards" have been spot up shooters like Fisher, Armstrong, Paxson, etc.. Crawford is not a spot up shooter.


Pargo is 6'1 according to NBA.com, and both he and Hunter look shorter than that anyways. Phil asked Lue to come back when he was a free agent but he declined, and Phil started Farmar (a rookie) over a much bigger player in Smush Parker who actually fits the tri mold much better than Farmar (traditional point guard) and yet Farmar ran the offense better...

How did that work out for the Kings?

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

TwinkieFoot

[quote] That may be true but remember that the Lakers still ran the triangle even after Phil left with Rudy Tomjanovic. Whose to say they won't make their new coach do the same?

That's your opinion. He was one of the few with the Bulls that managed to hold down that point position consistently and also help pioneer the first of the Lakers 3 consecutive championships. Now, you decide.

Harper was not necessarily the same player he was pre-surgery but that does not mean he became a guy capable of really running an offense. All the injury did was tone down his game and made him into a role player. The transformation your talking about just does not happen in basketball often and could be something like Jenna Jameson becoming Mother Theresa reincarnated.

He wasn't a prototypical PG either.


I don't think Odom or Walton could run a team full-time.

Your right about Pargo's height. Don't know about Lue but I do know if his decision to leave was much of a decision in his hands to make. As for Farmer, he started a couple games but Parker started a majority of the season and the playoffs even though Farmer was clearly the better player.

Pretty good considering they got rid of Brian Skinner, just got rid of Corliss Williamson as of July 1st and kept a serviceable role player in Kenny Thomas.

Wilt_The_Stilt

The Lakers ran the tri after Rudy quit mid-season and Frank Hamblen (Phil's old assistant)took over.

Harper for most of his tenure with the Bulls did not even play half the game (minute-wise) How can he be considered the best ever when that is the case? He only held down the fort for ~20 minutes a game. And the Lakers would have won their 1st ring without Harper, like they did the ones after he left.

I never said Harper was a pure point guard. But he wasn't a "gunner" while he was with the Bulls and he played defense, which Crawford doesn't. And that is what this is about...how Crawford (who is a no defense gunner) would fit in with the tri.

Never said he was, but again he (as a Bull) was not like Crawford either.

They split it with Kobe. Replace Kobe with Crawford and there is no one to run the team as Crawford is not capable of that.

Farmar started in the playoffs.

In the context of your original point (which was that several smaller contracts are easier to move than 1 big contract)they didn't do so well. The only player they traded was Skinner. They still have Thomas for 3 more overpriced years. The Lakers would be better off with the better players in Francis or Marbury and their contracts (which are shorter than Craw and QRich's)

__________________
"We've learned Kobe Bryant has been asked to run the Federal Reserve. The feeling is, he can do more with three quarters than most of us can do with a whole dollar."
--Peter Vescey, NY Post

knickstorm

YOu hit the dead end. He hit 47% of his shots. It doesnt matter how many he takes cause he still shot a good percentage. Anyone can jack shots, not everyone can hit a good percentage of them. The fact is he took an average of 18 shots a game........how is that too many or "jacking up shots" for the superstar of the team??? its less than wade, bryant, fill in whatever name you want..........YOu said he was a no show, and yet you cant point out the game where he was a no show. Ridiculous amount of shots during crucial times?? well you want Erik Dampier shooting those crucial shots??? YOu must've forgot the 3 pt play vs the Spurs in game 7. Once agian you cant point out the no show game and its laughable you credit erika dampier for playing a substatial role in the mavs run.

HOw many times does it have to happen to marbury before you get it through your skull he doesnt fit anywhere. Ok so every team he leaves gets better, you dont buy it, explain why every team he lands on gets worse?? He's a hard fit?? yea thats why he's not someone you want on your team. No team is built around a PG. NAme me one elite team in the last decade or 2 to be built around a point guard not named Magic.....and even magic had Kareem. YOu dont build around a PG because you just cant win that way.

Marbury was put in situations where other people need the ball in their hand to find the rhythm to hit their shots??? Like who?? on this team the only player that qualifies is jamal crawford. Don't lie, he had shooters in the past. Kittles could shoot, van horn was putting in 20+ a game back in jersey. You put him on a team full of Jason Kapono's and peja stojakovic's and he'd still lead them to nowhere. ....STop giving him excuses. He doesnt make anyone better, so if you want him to be a winner, you have to surround him with other elite players and that cant happen in NY with the salary cap and all.

THe knicks are just young and dont know how to win?!!? no they're just not good enough to win consistently. Yea its funny aint it....every "young team that doesnt know how to win" that you say marbury is stuck on, the first year that he leaves they all of a sudden learn how to win. What a huge coincidence.

Yea his ability to bring back assets means he's got game, but we're not disputing that. We're debating whether or not he can be part of a winning team and its obvious he cant be the centerpiece of one. YOu talk about a drive and kick game but that's not marbury's game. He's a get out of my way and let me shoot player. Look at QRIch, the drive and kick game worked great in phoenix, he comes here and is nowhere near the same player he was on the suns.

Is it also immaturity that led to him stupidly anointing himself the best PG in the NBA?? You're the one without facts, just ignorant statement after ignorant statement. Marbury hasnt won a thing in his life outside the PSAL title with Lincoln and his teammates cant stand him. I aint going to name names, but i spent time around the lockeroom working in the sports department of a local tv station and Marbury is the least liked teammate in NY that i've ever seen. Right up there, maybe even worse than AROD....at least in baseball you dont really have to talk to your teammate, plus you're not sharing a ball or anything.......Matter fact if you got a copy of the Knicks media guide this year, turn to the media page titled "the third estate", i'm actually in the picutre standing to isiah's side.

This team is going nowhere with marbury and will continue to go nowhere with marbury. It's all about me, it's the Stephon show. This is the same selfish guy who hurt the team just to show larry brown up by not taking any shots 2 seasons ago. Yea that was real mature.

alphaorange

I may not agree with EVERYTHING you said but.......



..................nicely done................




PS....Agree with most, though

TwinkieFoot

Once again, you did not read my post carefully enough. I clearly stated ",If I recall correctly, the issue was not him putting up alot a points but the ridiculous amount of shots he needed in order to do so during crucial parts of playoffs. Minutes also do an excellent job of helping you jack up your stats too." You and I both know that Dirk is an impressive shooter which in part helps him to mask some of those horrible games I'm referring to. The bottom line is that considering his real worth to the team is scoring the ball, he can not be caught up in those kind of funks when they need him the most. The playoffs this year against the Warriors where he shot 38.3% for the entire series is a good indication of the kind of games he has when it matters the most.

P.S., although Erick Dampier does not play a critical offensive role for the team, I think he does play a critical defensive role for that team. Remember that he's usually the guy that has helped turn the Mavs into a capable defensive team and also has to be capable of defending the opposing teams better big man, which says a lot in a very deep Conference of big men.

Every team Marbury lands on gets worse? With Marbury, the Wolves made the playoffs for the first time and got knocked out of the first round. Without Marbury, the Wolves made the playoffs and got knocked out of the first round.

Before Marbury, the Nets were a floundering franchise that were a lottery team. With Marbury, the Nets were a lottery team 2 out of 3 of the seasons he was there; the only exception being that Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn missed 55% of the games played with Marbury due to injury.

Before Marbury, the Suns were a floundering team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. With Marbury they were a lottery team 1 out of 2 seasons and that was mainly because they gutted their team to start their rebuilding project.

Before Marbury, the Knicks were a lottery team only getting worse. With Marbury we're a lottery team that is only getting better.

You see a general pattern here? Remind me how teams got worse from adding Marbury. By the way, the Pistons were built around Isiah Thomas and managed to do just fine. The Suns are an elite team that is built around Steve Nash. The Nets were an elite team built around Jason Kidd. The Heat were an elite team built around Wade (Shaq differed to Wade even in his first season; Wade did start at point). You can argue the Pistons were built around Billups because he not only ran an effective offense but also was a key defender on a defensive team built on stopping people (PG is crucial defensively because they can effectively disrupt the opposing teams PG who is responsible for running the offense). You can argue the same about the Jazz with Deron Williams, the guy who came up with the critical baskets against the Spurs. You can say Baron Davis with the Warriors if you consider the Warriors elite after beating the team alot of people believed would win the title. You can name Gary Payton for back in the day with the Sonics.

Have you taken a look at the teams Marbury has been on? The only accomplished shooter he had in his career was Van Horn. With the Nets, Van Horn was injury riddled. Outside of him there really was no one on that team of consequence except maybe Kerry Kittles and he was far from a jump shooter and in the same situation as Kittles. With the Suns, Marion had not developed any sort of range on his shot as was the case with Amare. No one else on that team was of consequence or became of consequence after Marbury left. With the Knicks, Marbury got back Van Horn but not for long. For some reason we never went to the pick and roll with Kurt Thomas and Tim Thomas became more of a post player, with the injuried Allan Houston out. Remind me, what jump shooters did Marbury have?

That is actually not the case at all. If you look at the Nets for instance, they reshaped that team dramatically. Other guys like Van Horn and Kittles got through the injury bugs they had earlier in their career and became more polished veterans. The Nets also had the advantage of playing in a weakened Eastern Conference and with a healthy Kenyon Martin that was not a wide eyed rookie anymore.

With the Suns, Amare was an inconsistent and raw rookie as well. 3 years later, he got Nash but also had time to polish his game. Marion in my opinion did not improve by leaps and bounds but he did refine certain skills like shooting the ball with range. That about covers the teams he's been on.

LOL, I find it humorous that Marbury is a "get out of my way player" yet somehow managed to be a top 5 league leader in assists accept for last year and this year. I guess the league decided that he chucked the ball so much that they should start jacking up his assist numbers as apart of league wide conspiracy.

By the way, if you haven't noticed a distinct difference in Richardson's health with us as opposed to the Suns, then you need to pay closer attention to games. When healthy this year, he looked pretty damn good on the floor before his back started giving out.

Again, Marbury was not far off from that comment of him being the best PG in the NBA. From an individual standpoint, his got all the skills to consistently beat guys one on one; even Steve Nash admitted that. From a team standpoint, he is not as accomplished as either Nash or Kidd but has never really played on a team that compliment his skills. For Marbury, it's harder to find that mix because he's a scoring PG but that does not mean he can not effectively run a team or be as successful. Building a team takes alot of work and careful planning, so it's obvious why most teams opt to go with the guys that have more versatility.

I've actually met Marbury several times in the past because we both grew up in Coney Island, so I know a little bit about him personally. Although he might not win popularity contests, does that really matter? He's a good guy down inside and that has been evident by his charity work. So what if a few guys don't mesh well with him?

[/quote]

LOL, so first you complain about Marbury being selfish with the basketball but when he decided to get his teammates involved more by not shooting, he's still "selfish." That's real interesting reasoning you got going on there.

TwinkieFoot

Check the stats:
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ron_ha....html?nav=page

Harper played 25.13 mpg. Not jaw dropping but he only played 19.9mpg after coming off his knee issues and if you look carefully at the numbers, his minutes actually increased as he grew more and more fimilar with the triangle. During those stints, he averaged about 1 turnover. Think what you may about Harper but I got my own opinion based on what I saw and what the numbers tell me.

Well, you can put it this way the Crawford could be a solid player in the triangle considering he's a big guard and has had experience playing in the system. If you look closely at Harper's early years, he played the same kind of game as Jamal did; a versatile 2 guard that could handle the ball.



If your talking about someone to initiate the offense, you still have 3 solid ball handlers and distributors with Jamal Crawford, Lamar Odom and Luke Walton. Although you won't have the same star power as you once did, the triangle was predicated on guys being able to find good shots within the system. If they work as a team, I don't see any reason why the Lakers won't at least be competitive. In addition to that, Crawford is no scrub either considering he could put up 20ppg if you give him the ball.

My mistake actually. Your right. I don't know what made me think otherwise.


In the context of your original point (which was that several smaller contracts are easier to move than 1 big contract)they didn't do so well. The only player they traded was Skinner. They still have Thomas for 3 more overpriced years. The Lakers would be better off with the better players in Francis or Marbury and their contracts (which are shorter than Craw and QRich's)[/quote]

Well, the Kings needed PF's and is why I believe they did not look to actively shop Kenny Thomas. He had a hefty contract attached to his name but the guy can put up a double double and that is something that I'm sure all teams are interested in. The guy was a starter both seasons as a King despite them signing and commiting alot of money to bringing in Abdur-Rahim. I think that says something about his ability as a player.

Da Grinch

ron harper was the pg in name only in the triangle , he rarely brought the ball up or set up the offense , it was usually Pippen and sometime MJ...he usually guarded the pg though, but not always.

as for marbury he really has been cast on some pretty bad teams but every single team he was put on was immediately bett