Considering how Jamal Crawford has played in recent games as the starting PG, what role do you believe would be appropriate for him in the future? I'm starting to wonder whether he'd be comfortable going back to the bench and if he does, who do we start in his place? If we draft a PG, does that mean Nate Robinson/Mardy Collins become dispensible? I'm curious to see how this back-court clutter gets resolved in the future because I don't believe all the players involved will want to accept these roles and if that's the case, why not move them for players we do need?
Bayless is looking good at the Knicks spot in the draft. If they get someone of his talent you can bet anyone is tradeable. All 3 of the guys you listed could find another home. I think Crawford would be the one to hold onto the most however.
__________________
"I'm not just saying we are going to do it my way, I'm just saying we are going to do it the Championship Way." -Michael Curry
Considering how Jamal Crawford has played in recent games as the starting PG, what role do you believe would be appropriate for him in the future? I'm starting to wonder whether he'd be comfortable going back to the bench and if he does, who do we start in his place? If we draft a PG, does that mean Nate Robinson/Mardy Collins become dispensible? I'm curious to see how this back-court clutter gets resolved in the future because I don't believe all the players involved will want to accept these roles and if that's the case, why not move them for players we do need?
to me crawford is one of the guys you basically have to keep ...almost every year of his career some1 is supposed to replace him and by the end of the season he is starting again , he does what he is supposed to do , plays hard and does what he is told and gets himself back in the game...he was brought to the knicks for his versatility he was supposed to be the 3rd guard behing houston and marbury playing both spost but it never happened really because houston couldn't stay healthy.
if the team gets a mayo or bayless or rose , i'm of the opinion you decide whats going to be the identity of the team and keep who fits it and send off who doesn't for what the team needs, right now i dont see many primadonnas in the backcourt all of them come off the bench right now without crying about it...but it makes no sense to waste the asset.
my preference to keep is mardy ,his main flaw is his shooting , most players who cant shoot learn to do it at least ok , nate isn't going to get any taller....and the knicks have a good number of spark off the bench type players , the need for nate is lessened by that .
__________________
"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
to me crawford is one of the guys you basically have to keep ...almost every year of his career some1 is supposed to replace him and by the end of the season he is starting again , he does what he is supposed to do , plays hard and does what he is told and gets himself back in the game...he was brought to the knicks for his versatility he was supposed to be the 3rd guard behing houston and marbury playing both spost but it never happened really because houston couldn't stay healthy.
if the team gets a mayo or bayless or rose , i'm of the opinion you decide whats going to be the identity of the team and keep who fits it and send off who doesn't for what the team needs, right now i dont see many primadonnas in the backcourt all of them come off the bench right now without crying about it...but it makes no sense to waste the asset.
my preference to keep is mardy ,his main flaw is his shooting , most players who cant shoot learn to do it at least ok , nate isn't going to get any taller....and the knicks have a good number of spark off the bench type players , the need for nate is lessened by that .
For me personally, Crawford's main problem (as far as playing the point) has mostly been the fact that I have not seen him as a PG. I think that it's his unconventional ways of going about playing the game that has helped to contribute to my perception of him at this position. His herky-jerky style works creating shots for himself and serving as an adrenaline rush for his teammates but I'm not sure whether that is what you want from the man running your offense full-time.
Like you said though, he has managed to surprise us every year by becoming increasingly more relevant in our plans. I'm even surprised by how well the ball has moved since he's slid into Marbury's old spot, so maybe he is a player we should hang onto. I still just don't understand why I am still uncomfortable with him being entrusted with these responsibilities for the time being; yet, I wouldn't want him to necessarily be traded but not necessarily as key a contributor as he is now which still leaves me at my original question.
For me personally, Crawford's main problem (as far as playing the point) has mostly been the fact that I have not seen him as a PG. I think that it's his unconventional ways of going about playing the game that has helped to contribute to my perception of him at this position. His herky-jerky style works creating shots for himself and serving as an adrenaline rush for his teammates but I'm not sure whether that is what you want from the man running your offense full-time.
Like you said though, he has managed to surprise us every year by becoming increasingly more relevant in our plans. I'm even surprised by how well the ball has moved since he's slid into Marbury's old spot, so maybe he is a player we should hang onto. I still just don't understand why I am still uncomfortable with him being entrusted with these responsibilities for the time being; yet, I wouldn't want him to necessarily be traded but not necessarily as key a contributor as he is now which still leaves me at my original question.
I think crawford is best served to be teamed with another ballhandler ,he did very well when nate played well alongside him because crawford is streaky and when he is not on it helps that he doesn't have to carry the team then and can concentrate on getting the other guard and other players scoring , also he has the type of game that makes the other team focus on him , also crawford desperately needs players on the court that can score without needing to be fed the ball, outside of curry because he tends to dominate the ball creating his shots.
i dont see crawford as a true point guard but as some1 who possess all the skills of a true point guard but he doesn't have that mentality , in his heart i see a scorer , but he's very coachable and he listens so he does a decnt job because he has all the skills .
__________________
"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
Love Jamal's demeanor, but if you can get value for him, he's expendable. You probably won't get too much value for the other guards. His shooting percentage is just too low. Nate was doing great at the 2nd point, not jacking and good A/TO ratio, but as of late he's slipped. What he does give you is an aggressive scoring option off of the bench. If Jamal would attack the rim like Nate, I'd say hang on to Jamal. Mardy has been shooting a little better as of late, and is there best defensive guard. He's also been a little more aggressive offensively. SO unless you get another defender at the guard position you hang on to him. Jones is another nice guy, OK player, but I'd have kept Nichols and let him and wilson develop.
What Do We Do With Jamal Crawford?
Linear Mode
