Julius Randle eat crow thread

[robillionaire]

I don’t ask people to eat crow anymore. That’s mean. Better to let bygones be bygones and put the past behind us. Randle is playing at an all-star level and we have won 10 of last 12 games. Life is good when you open up your heart and accept randle into your life. You don’t even have to scramble and hope the Knicks lose to teams like the pacers and raptors, you can be happy in post game threads when we win games, you don’t need to get the coach fired for retribution and you can actually root for Knicks success, it’s great. I’m not calling you out I’m calling you in!

[G_K_F]

I keep seeing this thread get bumped during the regular season.

Wonder if the same folks are bumping in the playoffs.

[cgf]

I think it’s very telling that this thread gets bumped every once in a while. We never see this for Brunson…why is that?

A) we do
B) most of us are happy to ignore Brunson's shortcomings, while Randle is judged exclusively for his by his detractors. Since Brunson gets the benefit of being judged for what he is, while Randle is judged for what he isn't, there isn't as much crow for people to eat about Brunson because we're generally a lot more fair when discussing him.

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

[Clyde_Style]

I think it’s very telling that this thread gets bumped every once in a while. We never see this for Brunson…why is that?

A) we do
B) most of us are happy to ignore Brunson's shortcomings, while Randle is judged exclusively for his by his detractors. Since Brunson gets the benefit of being judged for what he is, while Randle is judged for what he isn't, there isn't as much crow for people to eat about Brunson because we're generally a lot more fair when discussing him.

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

There's effort and then there's focus. The issue with Randle is that at key times he lacks focus and does completely random, counter-productive things because he literally has no idea what he is doing at that moment, like last night where he was breaking downcourt with the ball and he dribbled directly into two defenders and got stripped in the last two minutes of the game. Those kinds of plays are often 4-5 point swings for the other team and you cannot win at the highest level with these kinds of mental lapses at crunch time. We're mopping up on cupcakes right now so there's no reason to think this team is going to be dominant when it counts if Randle's basic decision making skills are so erratic and unreliable when it matters most.

And that's just focus. Don't get me started on his effort during crunch time which comes and goes like the wind.

[moocow007]

I think it’s very telling that this thread gets bumped every once in a while. We never see this for Brunson…why is that?

A) we do
B) most of us are happy to ignore Brunson's shortcomings, while Randle is judged exclusively for his by his detractors. Since Brunson gets the benefit of being judged for what he is, while Randle is judged for what he isn't, there isn't as much crow for people to eat about Brunson because we're generally a lot more fair when discussing him.

Exactly. And yet they accuse the others who see Randle for what he is as babies lol.

[moocow007]

A) we do
B) most of us are happy to ignore Brunson's shortcomings, while Randle is judged exclusively for his by his detractors. Since Brunson gets the benefit of being judged for what he is, while Randle is judged for what he isn't, there isn't as much crow for people to eat about Brunson because we're generally a lot more fair when discussing him.

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

That is correct. The funniest thing is that a lot of these same guys didn't point out Barrett's similar defense when he was here until they absolutely had to.

[DOT]

Leaving aside that "what about Brunson" is just a whataboutism, the difference is not only is Brunson more consistent on offense, but he doesn't have complete meltdown games like Randle does

Furthermore, Randle is #2 in the league in "lost ball" turnovers (meaning turnovers where the player wasn't passing, they just lost the ball), tied for 2nd in offensive fouls committed, and is 2nd in total turnovers

Brunson is 21st, 93rd, and 22nd in those same categories. The only place they're comparable in a similar category is "bad pass" turnovers, where Brunson is 15th and Randle is 19th, with 3 less than Brunson. However, the context is that Brunson has made 2,423 passes this year to Randle's 2,015, meaning in 400 more passes, he's turned the ball over 3 more times

But the big thing is that Brunson is a known playoff performer, Randle isn't. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what Randle does in the regular season, because he doesn't have to prove that anymore, he has to prove he can perform in the playoffs, something Brunson has proven time and time again.

[Stannis]

A) we do
B) most of us are happy to ignore Brunson's shortcomings, while Randle is judged exclusively for his by his detractors. Since Brunson gets the benefit of being judged for what he is, while Randle is judged for what he isn't, there isn't as much crow for people to eat about Brunson because we're generally a lot more fair when discussing him.

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

I guess since RJ is out , we have to start Brunson versus Randle topics...


Brunson is not a good defender but he's still a good hustler, which is what you want from your PG.

Randle plays moody and can be lazy.

And Brunson performed in his Knick playoff debut. Randle disappointed twice. We can keep bumping this thread in the regular season, but it's the same song and dance until he actually performs when it matters.

Honestly, in playoff basketball, Randle is your ideal match up. Too easy to make a game plan against. And you know he will get moody and frustrated. You play him tight and/or double team, Randle will have 6 TOs in a game.

[j4remi]

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

I didn't say anything about complaining to refs. Brunson, Randle, and Hart are all guilty of doing that too much.

But that's way too narrow to address "Effort" on the whole, which is why I brought up closeouts. Randle has the most inconsistent effort on rotations and closeouts on the team. Brunson isn't bad at rotations, and his closeouts aren't bad for lack of effort (it's a height/wingspan problem).

I doubt anyone cares if you retract your statement. I just get annoyed at throwing another player under the bus instead of confronting Randle's shortcomings. Randle can be bad on defense, but do so much else that he makes up for it. I'd respect these Randle defenses a lot more if that's the direction they took instead of grasping at straws claiming the league leader in charges drawn is comparably lazy.

[cgf]

Leaving aside that "what about Brunson" is just a whataboutism, the difference is not only is Brunson more consistent on offense, but he doesn't have complete meltdown games like Randle does

Furthermore, Randle is #2 in the league in "lost ball" turnovers (meaning turnovers where the player wasn't passing, they just lost the ball), tied for 2nd in offensive fouls committed, and is 2nd in total turnovers

Brunson is 21st, 93rd, and 22nd in those same categories. The only place they're comparable in a similar category is "bad pass" turnovers, where Brunson is 15th and Randle is 19th, with 3 less than Brunson. However, the context is that Brunson has made 2,423 passes this year to Randle's 2,015, meaning in 400 more passes, he's turned the ball over 3 more times

But the big thing is that Brunson is a known playoff performer, Randle isn't. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what Randle does in the regular season, because he doesn't have to prove that anymore, he has to prove he can perform in the playoffs, something Brunson has proven time and time again.

Crying “whataboutism” isn’t a valid defense against accusations of double standards. You can not determine whether double standards are in place without looking at the standards that others are held to. That’s the whole point…a point you seem to concede by bringing up Brunson’s offense as a justification for giving him a pass on defense.

If people just criticized Randle for his handle being too loose, for his focus wandering too much to be the go to guy in crunch time, for him launching every pass at 100mph, for his tendency to beat himself up too much when things start to spiral, etc. I wouldn’t have as much to comment about. Julius has legitimate flaws, that’s why he’s just a lower level all-NBA guy.

But people attacking Julius for things that they excuse other star scorers for, including Jalen, is a hypocrisy I can’t keep myself from responding to…especially when the metrics say that despite Julius’ “lack of effort” he doesn’t hurt our defense as much as Brunson does…or as much as Booker hurts Phoenix’s.

[cgf]

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

I guess since RJ is out , we have to start Brunson versus Randle topics...


Brunson is not a good defender but he's still a good hustler, which is what you want from your PG.

Randle plays moody and can be lazy.

And Brunson performed in his Knick playoff debut. Randle disappointed twice. We can keep bumping this thread in the regular season, but it's the same song and dance until he actually performs when it matters.

Honestly, in playoff basketball, Randle is your ideal match up. Too easy to make a game plan against. And you know he will get moody and frustrated. You play him tight and/or double team, Randle will have 6 TOs in a game.

Yeah, this fanbase just can’t enjoy having two all-NBA guys on the team without tearing one of them down. Sucks that people can’t just appreciate our gorgeous BRundle.

[moocow007]

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

I guess since RJ is out , we have to start Brunson versus Randle topics...


Brunson is not a good defender but he's still a good hustler, which is what you want from your PG.

Randle plays moody and can be lazy.

And Brunson performed in his Knick playoff debut. Randle disappointed twice. We can keep bumping this thread in the regular season, but it's the same song and dance until he actually performs when it matters.

Honestly, in playoff basketball, Randle is your ideal match up. Too easy to make a game plan against. And you know he will get moody and frustrated. You play him tight and/or double team, Randle will have 6 TOs in a game.

I think the point of bringing in Brunson (now that RJ is out) is not to try to set up a tit-for-tat (a la Chandler vs Gallo) type of thing. it's simply to point out fans have a habit of picking heroes and villains and then attacking their villains (same with Chandler vs Gallo right?). I think most everyone acknowledges Randle's problems. The point is the focus seems to always be on his weaknesses which they love to bring out to no end every chance they get, but rarely do you ever see them talk about Randle's positives (when he has a great game, helps elevate his team to a win, etc.). It's the same tiring schtick. Cry to heaven about his weaknesses but crickets or minimize his strengths or excuses about his or that. They don't like people to give Randle an excuse when he's bad but they will give plenty of excuses when he's good as why he's really not good. They'll shift goal posts to always make anything good he does not good cause hey it's something else that's bad.

[Stannis]

Yeah, this fanbase just can’t enjoy having two all-NBA guys on the team without tearing one of them down. Sucks that people can’t just appreciate our gorgeous BRundle.

Well you are the one bringing up Brunson as if it's a double-standard (it's not). I don't see the point of doing this.

I did not enjoy watching Randle shoot 30% and 4 TOs a game in the playoffs. Unacceptable from your power forward.

I know he can smash the sub .500 teams. I'm not worried about that.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Pot successfully stirred.

Last night just feels like a bad game for eat crow bump. He had late game heroics, which we celebrate. It’s ironic because that was really the only time in the game he played like that. He was a big reason why the heroics were needed in the first place.

That shouldn’t make you a Randle hater. And a Randle lover should also be able to accept that.

This binary stuff is bs

[DOT]

Crying “whataboutism” isn’t a valid defense against accusations of double standards. You can not determine whether double standards are in place without looking at the standards that others are held to. That’s the whole point…a point you seem to concede by bringing up Brunson’s offense as a justification for giving him a pass on defense.

One of us is crying, yeah.

[cgf]

I think this is pretty weak. Randle is judged for his effort. His shortcomings on defense are effort-based, not due to physical limitations. Brunson closes out hard and players shoot over him. Randle closes out soft and players shoot over him. It's not the same shortcoming, which is why they're not treated the same.

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

I didn't say anything about complaining to refs. Brunson, Randle, and Hart are all guilty of doing that too much.

But that's way too narrow to address "Effort" on the whole, which is why I brought up closeouts. Randle has the most inconsistent effort on rotations and closeouts on the team. Brunson isn't bad at rotations, and his closeouts aren't bad for lack of effort (it's a height/wingspan problem).

I doubt anyone cares if you retract your statement. I just get annoyed at throwing another player under the bus instead of confronting Randle's shortcomings. Randle can be bad on defense, but do so much else that he makes up for it. I'd respect these Randle defenses a lot more if that's the direction they took instead of grasping at straws claiming the league leader in charges drawn is comparably lazy.

It’s not just complaining to refs. Take notes about the kinds of plays that Julius gets yelled at in GDTs, then watch Jalen with an honest eye, and look at how people respond in the GDT when Jalen makes the kinds of lazy decisions Julius does. I think you’ll be surprised by what you find.

It’s not about excusing Randle’s defense, it’s just about judging his defense the same way we judge the defense of other guys with a similar offensive burden. People accept that Siakam’s contributions outweigh his defensive deterioration. They make every excuse imaginable for why Murray’s been a bad defender this decade. But for Julius, he is lambasted for his bad plays, not his net impact.

[3toheadmelo]

no one ever gives him props for the good playoff games he's had. while on one ankle that required surgery.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[j4remi]

Brunson never gets criticized for his lazy plays. Randle's lazy plays are all his detractors talk about. If you can find me a post commenting on any of the times Jalen jogged back on D...which happens regularly...I'll retract my comment. Until then I'll stand by what I said.

I guess since RJ is out , we have to start Brunson versus Randle topics...


Brunson is not a good defender but he's still a good hustler, which is what you want from your PG.

Randle plays moody and can be lazy.

And Brunson performed in his Knick playoff debut. Randle disappointed twice. We can keep bumping this thread in the regular season, but it's the same song and dance until he actually performs when it matters.

Honestly, in playoff basketball, Randle is your ideal match up. Too easy to make a game plan against. And you know he will get moody and frustrated. You play him tight and/or double team, Randle will have 6 TOs in a game.

I think the point of bringing in Brunson (now that RJ is out) is not to try to set up a tit-for-tat (a la Chandler vs Gallo) type of thing. it's simply to point out fans have a habit of picking heroes and villains and then attacking their villains (same with Chandler vs Gallo right?). I think most everyone acknowledges Randle's problems. The point is the focus seems to always be on his weaknesses which they love to bring out to no end every chance they get, but rarely do you ever see them talk about Randle's positives (when he has a great game, helps elevate his team to a win, etc.). It's the same tiring schtick. Cry to heaven about his weaknesses but crickets or minimize his strengths or excuses about his or that. They don't like people to give Randle an excuse when he's bad but they will give plenty of excuses when he's good as why he's really not good. They'll shift goal posts to always make anything good he does not good cause hey it's something else that's bad.

I can never tell if this is frequency illusions, or if the fact that I follow Knicks' talk on other platforms means I'm not seeing the extreme biases.

For the most part, I've seen Randle get plenty of love this season with one caveat (he has to do it in the playoffs now). I've actually got a few posts about why I think he's poised to finally have a good postseason.

But either way, it feels a lot more like deflections when people jump straight to "How come people don't complain about Brunson more" instead of "how come people don't give Randle more credit for rebounding and playmaking." And regardless, Randle's effort is visibly and frequently inconsistent which can't be said for Brunson based solely on complaining to refs a few times a night.

[cgf]

Yeah, this fanbase just can’t enjoy having two all-NBA guys on the team without tearing one of them down. Sucks that people can’t just appreciate our gorgeous BRundle.

Well you are the one bringing up Brunson as if it's a double-standard (it's not). I don't see the point of doing this.

I did not enjoy watching Randle shoot 30% and 4 TOs a game in the playoffs. Unacceptable from your power forward.

I know he can smash the sub .500 teams. I'm not worried about that.

I’ve brought up Markannen, Siakam, Lavine, Brunson, Booker, and a dozen other NBA stars who are around Randle’s level defensively (or worse) without being criticized for their defense as much as Randle is. That’s not to tear those guys down, but to point out where Randle’s defense actually ranks.

And I’m the first to concede Julius has to prove this season that he can deliver when teams key in on him in the playoffs. But that’s a completely different critique. Just like his questionable BBIQ and limited finesse, those are valid critiques.

But his effort and defense just aren’t atypical for a top option…or even below anverage…and with Brunson and Randle both over 29% usage, both carry a top option’s burden.

[cgf]

Crying “whataboutism” isn’t a valid defense against accusations of double standards. You can not determine whether double standards are in place without looking at the standards that others are held to. That’s the whole point…a point you seem to concede by bringing up Brunson’s offense as a justification for giving him a pass on defense.

One of us is crying, yeah.

I take it that means you have to admit that my point is correct, and that’s why all you can say in response is this pathetic attempt at a joke.