Moderators: Jeff Van Gully, Deeeez Knicks, HerSports85, j4remi, NoLayupRule, dakomish23, GONYK, mpharris36
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Imagine looking at this
And saying that RJ would make them worse, and they wouldn't get to a game 7, while Jimmy and Bam were the only double digit scorers on the team. You're goddamn right they wouldn't get to 7, the Heat would have won in 6 if anyone on that team had even a hint of a pulse on offense
If RJ sucked in the playoffs, what did PJ Tucker do? RJ was 111 ORTG, 110 DRTG, a net positive
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
This is really the strangest thing about RJ, I listen to a lot of basketball podcasts, a lot of them aren't even Knicks focused, and across the board all these different basketball minds, analysts, coaches, etc all like RJ. Yet, I come here, and it's bizzarro world.
Everybody loved Randle last year.
And everybody loved KP.
You of all people, as somebody who remained skeptical of Randle while he was being serenaded by the entire basketball world, should know that an opinion isn't necessarily true because it is held by many.
Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs, I actually think Randle can have a bounce back year this year because of the rule changes.
You gonna get RJ replies on my time now, that despicable ducking done with the PJ Tucker question has opened my eyes.
Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Imagine looking at this
And saying that RJ would make them worse, and they wouldn't get to a game 7, while Jimmy and Bam were the only double digit scorers on the team. You're goddamn right they wouldn't get to 7, the Heat would have won in 6 if anyone on that team had even a hint of a pulse on offense
If RJ sucked in the playoffs, what did PJ Tucker do? RJ was 111 ORTG, 110 DRTG, a net positive
RJ had a -10.2 net rating in the playoffs last year according to NBA.com.
102.8 offensive rating
113.0 defensive rating
Chanel Bomber wrote:shooting section in basketball-reference. Brown's scoring efficiency was always close to or above league-average.
Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Burks's FG% was driven by the fact that more than half of his shot attempts were 3s. It naturally trended towards his 3P%. So his FG% was misleading at face value. He was obviously sub-optimal as a starting point guard if you want RJ and Randle to be finishers. He was a solid point guard if you want them to initiate. Which I think goes back to my confusion about what people (not necessarily you - just in general) want from the Knicks regarding RJ. Do they want him to be set up and finish plays, or do they want him to create?
The Knicks could've gone more to Fournier, or IQ, who are both more talented as shot creators. The team suffered from its overall lack of talent, I agree. But they could have run a more equalitarian offense.
As you said, you can make a case for running this experiment in his 3rd year, considering how shambolic that season was at the team level. But now we have the results. We can make an informed decision about whether or not this experiment was worth it, or a failure. Everything points towards the latter. So my suggestion would be to scale down his role, hold him accountable in year 4, judge him by his defensive impact and his efficiency as a scorer (since he doesn't really pass the ball), and then offer him a contract that more or less reflects the value of his contributions (if you don't trade him over the summer).
I agree that RJ would've played marginally better with a better roster around him. You can say that about his teammates as well though. But I think your take is reasonable.Chanel Bomber wrote:Which I think goes back to my confusion about what people (not necessarily you - just in general) want from the Knicks regarding RJ. Do they want him to be set up and finish plays, or do they want him to create?.
I can't speak to others, but I want RJ doing a little bit of both. Its about finding the right balance between creating and finishing. Ideally he is not the primary guy and we have someone to at least run the offense as a PG. You still need secondary playmakers and that is where RJ fits in better as secondary guy that can do a bit of everything.
Brunson shouldnt be a primary guy either, but at least he gives the Knicks another option and is someone that can run the offense which takes pressure off. He should help create and facilitate for others. Now, I am not a fan of the overall vision, but Brunson in a vacuum is an upgrade at PG and should help the offense, everyone included.
But lets be real...If we are calling for the more Fournier that just proves the point that the Knicks were pretty sad. PJ Tucker, or Royce O'Neal would not be any good either if we put the ball in there hands.
Just the way the Knicks were set up someone had to take those inefficient shots and be the creator...take the hit for the team. That was RJ and Randle...they also happened to help open up shots for Fournier and Burks. Take away RJ and Randle and put the ball more in Burks, Fournier, Royce O'neal, PJ Tuckers, etc hands and their efficiency would drop a lot. It already dropped for Burks as I pointed out.
Like I have been saying though, RJ needs to improve. Its just that this roster was far from ideal for really anyone to succeed.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's no doubt that it's a poorly-constructed roster (or rather starting line-up) that affects every player operating within it, outside of the bench, which has driven whatever success the Knicks have had in the last two years. To your point, regardless of how good or not they are individually, RJ and Randle just don't fit together, and they are not going to succeed together.
But I would add that some were eager to take on that responsibility, and it seems to have given them a false sense of how good they are. Which is always a worry when you empower players too early. It's not a secret (literally) RJ wanted to get to 20 ppg, so I doubt he actually perceived his usage as a burden or as "taking the hit for the team". Neither did Randle. They both see their usage as validation of their talent, or as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which is why their role needs to be scaled down, especially now that the Knicks have a proper point guard. They were not held accountable this past season - they need to be.
The Knicks have a track record of empowering players because they are a desperate organization that keeps missing on stars so they artificially create them to have something to show for. These players then predictably become entitled and selfish. It started with Melo, which was fine for the first 4 years before he was completely washed, which then became a problem. It continued with KP. Then Randle. Then RJ.
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
This is really the strangest thing about RJ, I listen to a lot of basketball podcasts, a lot of them aren't even Knicks focused, and across the board all these different basketball minds, analysts, coaches, etc all like RJ. Yet, I come here, and it's bizzarro world.
Everybody loved Randle last year.
And everybody loved KP.
You of all people, as somebody who remained skeptical of Randle while he was being serenaded by the entire basketball world, should know that an opinion isn't necessarily true because it is held by many.
Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs, I actually think Randle can have a bounce back year this year because of the rule changes.
You gonna get RJ replies on my time now, that despicable ducking done with the PJ Tucker question has opened my eyes.
3toheadmelo wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Everybody loved Randle last year.
And everybody loved KP.
You of all people, as somebody who remained skeptical of Randle while he was being serenaded by the entire basketball world, should know that an opinion isn't necessarily true because it is held by many.
Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs, I actually think Randle can have a bounce back year this year because of the rule changes.
You gonna get RJ replies on my time now, that despicable ducking done with the PJ Tucker question has opened my eyes.
the very honorable no dope on sunday showing why the alliance with melozakistan is very strong!
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Imagine looking at this
And saying that RJ would make them worse, and they wouldn't get to a game 7, while Jimmy and Bam were the only double digit scorers on the team. You're goddamn right they wouldn't get to 7, the Heat would have won in 6 if anyone on that team had even a hint of a pulse on offense
If RJ sucked in the playoffs, what did PJ Tucker do? RJ was 111 ORTG, 110 DRTG, a net positive
RJ had a -10.2 net rating in the playoffs last year according to NBA.com.
102.8 offensive rating
113.0 defensive rating
111 ORTG
110 DRTG
On basketball reference.
Are we only using basketball reference when it helps our argument? That's from this thread, you told me to use it.Chanel Bomber wrote:shooting section in basketball-reference. Brown's scoring efficiency was always close to or above league-average.
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
111 ORTG
110 DRTG
On basketball reference.
Are we only using basketball reference when it helps our argument?
Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:RJ had a -10.2 net rating in the playoffs last year according to NBA.com.
102.8 offensive rating
113.0 defensive rating
111 ORTG
110 DRTG
On basketball reference.
Are we only using basketball reference when it helps our argument? That's from this thread, you told me to use it.Chanel Bomber wrote:shooting section in basketball-reference. Brown's scoring efficiency was always close to or above league-average.
I knew you were gonna pull that card but NBA.com is more reliable for net ratings than basketball-reference. I have used the official site for those stats for a while, not because it supports my argument in this instance.
I don't know how basketball-reference calculates their Ortg or Drtg.
DOT wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
111 ORTG
110 DRTG
On basketball reference.
Are we only using basketball reference when it helps our argument?
Chanel's right in this instance
Bball-ref's O/DRTG numbers aren't correct
I don't know how they calculate it, but it's not what they say it is. Synergy's O/DRTG numbers are what they say on the tin, points scored/points given up while a player is on the floor per100 possessions.
Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:
I can't speak to others, but I want RJ doing a little bit of both. Its about finding the right balance between creating and finishing. Ideally he is not the primary guy and we have someone to at least run the offense as a PG. You still need secondary playmakers and that is where RJ fits in better as secondary guy that can do a bit of everything.
Brunson shouldnt be a primary guy either, but at least he gives the Knicks another option and is someone that can run the offense which takes pressure off. He should help create and facilitate for others. Now, I am not a fan of the overall vision, but Brunson in a vacuum is an upgrade at PG and should help the offense, everyone included.
But lets be real...If we are calling for the more Fournier that just proves the point that the Knicks were pretty sad. PJ Tucker, or Royce O'Neal would not be any good either if we put the ball in there hands.
Just the way the Knicks were set up someone had to take those inefficient shots and be the creator...take the hit for the team. That was RJ and Randle...they also happened to help open up shots for Fournier and Burks. Take away RJ and Randle and put the ball more in Burks, Fournier, Royce O'neal, PJ Tuckers, etc hands and their efficiency would drop a lot. It already dropped for Burks as I pointed out.
Like I have been saying though, RJ needs to improve. Its just that this roster was far from ideal for really anyone to succeed.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's no doubt that it's a poorly-constructed roster (or rather starting line-up) that affects every player operating within it, outside of the bench, which has driven whatever success the Knicks have had in the last two years. To your point, regardless of how good or not they are individually, RJ and Randle just don't fit together, and they are not going to succeed together.
But I would add that some were eager to take on that responsibility, and it seems to have given them a false sense of how good they are. Which is always a worry when you empower players too early. It's not a secret (literally) RJ wanted to get to 20 ppg, so I doubt he actually perceived his usage as a burden or as "taking the hit for the team". Neither did Randle. They both see their usage as validation of their talent, or as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which is why their role needs to be scaled down, especially now that the Knicks have a proper point guard. They were not held accountable this past season - they need to be.
The Knicks have a track record of empowering players because they are a desperate organization that keeps missing on stars so they artificially create them to have something to show for. These players then predictably become entitled and selfish. It started with Melo, which was fine for the first 4 years before he was completely washed, which then became a problem. It continued with KP. Then Randle. Then RJ.
Regarding RJ and Randle, I def agree that they are not a good fit. Personally I would move Randle for a variety of reasons.
In terms of entitlement, I agree to extent but would put the blame on the front office and coaching staff for that one. It’s clear they encourage it. As you pointed out it’s a trend. So i don’t see how it can be RJs fault. They want players they can sell, whether its THJ, KP, Melo, Marbury, Amare, RJ, Randle, etc. Those guys all had there strengths and flaws…and obviously all at different levels. They all took some blame. No doubt they deserved some criticism but they probably got too much blame at times. Overall they were set up to fail.
So it’s more then fair to talk about RJs flaws as a player. He has plenty. I just wouldn’t blame him for the short comings of the front office or horrible roster construction.
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:It's not about being right or wrong in this instance, it's about flustering Chanel
Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Yeah, absolutely.
There's no doubt that it's a poorly-constructed roster (or rather starting line-up) that affects every player operating within it, outside of the bench, which has driven whatever success the Knicks have had in the last two years. To your point, regardless of how good or not they are individually, RJ and Randle just don't fit together, and they are not going to succeed together.
But I would add that some were eager to take on that responsibility, and it seems to have given them a false sense of how good they are. Which is always a worry when you empower players too early. It's not a secret (literally) RJ wanted to get to 20 ppg, so I doubt he actually perceived his usage as a burden or as "taking the hit for the team". Neither did Randle. They both see their usage as validation of their talent, or as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which is why their role needs to be scaled down, especially now that the Knicks have a proper point guard. They were not held accountable this past season - they need to be.
The Knicks have a track record of empowering players because they are a desperate organization that keeps missing on stars so they artificially create them to have something to show for. These players then predictably become entitled and selfish. It started with Melo, which was fine for the first 4 years before he was completely washed, which then became a problem. It continued with KP. Then Randle. Then RJ.
Regarding RJ and Randle, I def agree that they are not a good fit. Personally I would move Randle for a variety of reasons.
In terms of entitlement, I agree to extent but would put the blame on the front office and coaching staff for that one. It’s clear they encourage it. As you pointed out it’s a trend. So i don’t see how it can be RJs fault. They want players they can sell, whether its THJ, KP, Melo, Marbury, Amare, RJ, Randle, etc. Those guys all had there strengths and flaws…and obviously all at different levels. They all took some blame. No doubt they deserved some criticism but they probably got too much blame at times. Overall they were set up to fail.
So it’s more then fair to talk about RJs flaws as a player. He has plenty. I just wouldn’t blame him for the short comings of the front office or horrible roster construction.
I don't blame him for that either, although I do believe that getting to 20ppg on bottom-of-the-league efficiency is inherently a selfish pursuit. But it has been encouraged by adult men, who should know better as veterans in this profession (they don't). They should be held accountable. I think it's an organizational failure, and I think it's surreal that it's being celebrated by the fanbase.
I think it will be a great step if the role of both of these players get scaled down with the arrival of Brunson, and if they play in roles where they are more likely to succeed. Hopefully they embrace it.
3toheadmelo wrote:this has become an advanced stat battle it seems
DowNY wrote:nedleeds wrote:stuporman wrote:If RJ had a flashy crossover or was a high flying dunker his 20/6/3 at 21 years old would have Knicks fans creaming themselves nonstop but since he isn't that there is a lukewarm feeling towards his upside.
I'd settle for not the one of the worst 25 shooters who play in the league and can jump over a phone book actually. My standards are very reasonable.
https://youtu.be/TAsQh07_kNo
You must be old where the phone books were like the size of a bicycle or something
Zenzibar wrote:Nevertheless, Payton is not a finished product yet and unless the team moves him in a couple of weeks, I anticipate him trending upward with this coaching staff.
Good jobnedleeds wrote:DowNY wrote:nedleeds wrote:
I'd settle for not the one of the worst 25 shooters who play in the league and can jump over a phone book actually. My standards are very reasonable.
https://youtu.be/TAsQh07_kNo
You must be old where the phone books were like the size of a bicycle or something
Nah, I'm old enough to remember when we realized elite NBA athleticism on this board. RJ is a very average NBA athlete which explains his terrible percentages around the rim. Maybe all this positive poster prayer power will somehow grant him some hops this Summer.
He didn't even look elite in college and shot miserably.
This is what elite athleticism looks like in case you forgot from watching too much of our morbid franchise.
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:DOT wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:
111 ORTG
110 DRTG
On basketball reference.
Are we only using basketball reference when it helps our argument?
Chanel's right in this instance
Bball-ref's O/DRTG numbers aren't correct
I don't know how they calculate it, but it's not what they say it is. Synergy's O/DRTG numbers are what they say on the tin, points scored/points given up while a player is on the floor per100 possessions.
It's not about being right or wrong in this instance, it's about flustering Chanel, I got him spinning around on the defensive. I'm throwing out all his cases from the past that involve basketball-reference citations.
