Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Who Would You Keep? Stephon or Franchise

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

· Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alright it's pretty obvious, we need to get rid of either Steph or Stevie. Now who do you think should go? Or should both of them pack their bags and hit the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaCeRhOLiC

· X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
i'd trade francis personally to the twolves. and get back some defenders

francis for hassell & jaric sounds about right...it would help both teams .
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaCeRhOLiC

· Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
WTChan said:
And trade Nate to Seattle.
Chill out with the Nate to Seattle posts. It's not going to happen anytime soon, if not ever. Let's stay on topic...it's all about NYK!
 

· Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Grinch, why do you want to keep Steph at this point? You think he can turn it around next season and come out smelling like roses aka Billups style.
 

· X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
Kitty said:
Grinch, why do you want to keep Steph at this point? You think he can turn it around next season and come out smelling like roses aka Billups style.
because he is a good player and unlike francis ....marbury is a good point guard while francis looks more like a 2 guard with a great handle . also there is chemistry issues if you keep changing players at every position, marbury is an advantage vs. just about every pg in the league and he is the longest tenured knick, i'd keep him for continuity alone...at this point he is the knicks identity.

the team doesn't need a new pg , it needs defense , if IT can trade francis for a good-great frontcourt defender like rasho nesterovic i would be on board , the team is just overloaded at guard scoring and too poor in other areas
 

· Sexy Moderator
Joined
·
13,492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Da Grinch said:
because he is a good player and unlike francis ....marbury is a good point guard while francis looks more like a 2 guard with a great handle . also there is chemistry issues if you keep changing players at every position, marbury is an advantage vs. just about every pg in the league and he is the longest tenured knick, i'd keep him for continuity alone...at this point he is the knicks identity.

the team doesn't need a new pg , it needs defense , if IT can trade francis for a good-great frontcourt defender like rasho nesterovic i would be on board , the team is just overloaded at guard scoring and too poor in other areas
I understand where you coming from, but the guy is killing the locker room. Why would continue to have him on this team if he is walking around with a scrowl and a towel over his head? You want the new kids on this team to be surrounded by positive players. Steph hasn't been positive about this at all. I'm not sure if I want to keep him aboard for another season of crying to the media and watching him show up team mates when they make a mistake. I think I had enough.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19,436 Posts
Kitty said:
Chill out with the Nate to Seattle posts. It's not going to happen anytime soon, if not ever. Let's stay on topic...it's all about NYK!
Yea, I know. But my point remains. I just don't like the idea of a starting scoring guard as a PG when you have a good iso player in Crawford, a shooter who needs someone to create for him in Q, and Eddy Curry. I'm not saying Nate can't start, I'm just saying it's not a good idea. Too many options, not enough distributors.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
Grinch, you're right

The identity of the Knicks is of a losing team....and Marbury is the face. I'm not sure why you cling to him, but he's a goner. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was playing well but he can't stand prosperity and became a huge distraction with his sparring with Brown. He is most certainly NOT a good PG, but he IS a helluva scorer. Big deal....it usually comes at the expense of the team. This doesn't even begin to take into consideration his team chemistry issues. Yes, he can outscore Nash and some of the others(perhaps), but I'll take Nash's 15/8 with a smooth running offense to Marbury's 20/8 and an offense of guys standing around watching anyday. The chemistry issues you talk about are largely BECAUSE of Marbury and his attitude. You say we need defense and yet you want to keep one of the worst defenders at his position in the NBA? His tenure means nothing...absolutely nothing. Win or go home.

You and others have yet to come up with a really good reason to hope he is an answer. The detractors, however, have a busload of ammunition. History always repeats and every team he has played on has chemistry issues. They get better when he leaves. He doesn't D up. He is not self sacrificing. He does not run a disciplined offense well at all. What are your reasons again? And what, besides blind faith, are you basing them on?
 

· X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
Kitty said:
I understand where you coming from, but the guy is killing the locker room. Why would continue to have him on this team if he is walking around with a scrowl and a towel over his head? You want the new kids on this team to be surrounded by positive players. Steph hasn't been positive about this at all. I'm not sure if I want to keep him aboard for another season of crying to the media and watching him show up team mates when they make a mistake. I think I had enough.
people love to scapegoat , but i am of the belief that no one man can kill a locker anymore than one man can save one.

if steph could kill a locker room , then the other 13 men in the locker room are very weak men and weren't going to win anyway. By all accounts Steph is just a guy who wears a scowl because thats just the guy he is , like kurt thomas wore a scowl or charles oakley did , it doesn't make them a bad person and doesn't automatically make them less than personable to players on the team (outsiders who only see a surface demeanor possibly though)also if anything he runs hot and cold with people , he can have his moments where he is less than a saint (the bad body language which is more personal weakness than showing up to me, showing weakness empowers the opposing team to come at you harder) and he has moments that endear himself to his teammates like when he bought suits for his rookie teammates and the mil. for Katrina victims .

when i look at the Knicks team i see leaders who aren't steph in crawford, Qrich, jalen, malik and frye , to me marbury is just a guy who is the team's best player and a guy with some pull with IT , not much different from JC, and when i look at the roster i see a team that looks like "this is your life Jamal" with guys he played with in HS(nate), went to his college(mo and jalen) played with him in Hoops the Gym (Qrich and curry), played with him in seattle in the offseason(jerome james) and on his team in chi. (Jalen and Curry again). if there were some evidence the team did well without marbury i could try to buy the "marbury is bringing these guys down" angle , but all season the team has been rather bad when he hasn't been on the court and when he was hurt they were dreadful,

i look at him more like having a jordanesque personality(to a lesser degree because this is not a compliment) without the jordanlike ability to back it up, you ask reporters who was the best teammate on those title teams they say it was jordan ...you ask the actual players and to a man they say pippen which to me means on the most covered team in recent memory the press got it wrong , in fact most of MJ's teammates didn't like him at all , some guys like horace grant actually hated him, but they could work with him because they were professional, and i think they have it wrong here too.

i see when the cameras go to the bench, the team is actually a team that likes each other , marbury included, and it has some very different personalities on it , you have some mellow guys on it , some rah-rah types and you have guys like marbury who are more melancholy(steve francis is the 1st that comes to mind replacing another guy who was like that in penny) who on the roster is having a problem with Steph ...

I think most would say Qrich , but right after their beef (supposedly) Q plays the best he has all season , to me that was leadership. also lets remember at that occasion marbury was not the only person to call Q out he just did it with the most decibles behind his voice.

if these guys truly like winning then they like playing with marbury because without him they are the worse team in the nba,

and even so i can understand not wanting him on the team as a fan , with the persona he puts out usually to many people he just isn't likable, and fans have a right to want likable guys on the roster ,add to that he is inarticulate and makes some truly dumb statements and actions but i think he is needed for more than his points and assists , he is one of the few "tough" guys on this team , there are more than a fair share of softies on this roster ...marbury is essentially this team's "enforcer" and that is sad ...there is maybe 2 other guys who you can call tough for his position and that is QRich and nate...no one in the frontcourt , and for a LB team who wants to grind things out in the halfcourt that is a problem.
 

· X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
Re: Grinch, you're right

alphadog said:
The identity of the Knicks is of a losing team....and Marbury is the face. I'm not sure why you cling to him, but he's a goner. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was playing well but he can't stand prosperity and became a huge distraction with his sparring with Brown. He is most certainly NOT a good PG, but he IS a helluva scorer. Big deal....it usually comes at the expense of the team. This doesn't even begin to take into consideration his team chemistry issues. Yes, he can outscore Nash and some of the others(perhaps), but I'll take Nash's 15/8 with a smooth running offense to Marbury's 20/8 and an offense of guys standing around watching anyday. The chemistry issues you talk about are largely BECAUSE of Marbury and his attitude. You say we need defense and yet you want to keep one of the worst defenders at his position in the NBA? His tenure means nothing...absolutely nothing. Win or go home.

You and others have yet to come up with a really good reason to hope he is an answer. The detractors, however, have a busload of ammunition. History always repeats and every team he has played on has chemistry issues. They get better when he leaves. He doesn't D up. He is not self sacrificing. He does not run a disciplined offense well at all. What are your reasons again? And what, besides blind faith, are you basing them on?

alpha ,

the team sucks without him , thats an established fact .

the knicks suck this year because they cant score and they cant defend...none of that changes when marbury is off the court ...actually they score better when marbury is on the court and defend worse when he is on the bench . the knicks shoot better when he is playing and the opponents shoot better when he is sitting.


http://www.82games.com/0506/05NYK2D.HTM

marbury is way better than you are giving him credit for.

you can say what you like but the facts dont lie.

if you can trade marbury for nash i say go for it , but chances you cant and neither can IT , i would accept last year's marbury and JC launching whenever they saw fit occasionally passing to a good shooting perimeter PF and actually being able to win some games and staying in most of them, with a coach no one cares about than this year's Super coach who has a horrible defense only matched by and even worse offense where To's happen more than assists .


i only cling to common sense...someday i hope you will too.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top