Page 1 of 1
thank god isiah is dumb enough to not trade z-bo.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:35 am
by marik1234xx
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:38 am
by TheBluest
0-4 without Zach.
Spurs were without Manu or do you choose to ignore this oversight?
Remember when we beat New Jersey without Curry with Zach as the starter?
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:39 am
by DocZaius
Marbury
Crawford
Q
Randolph
Curry
FTW!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:41 am
by DocZaius
TheBluest wrote:0-4 without Zach.
Spurs were without Manu or do you choose to ignore this oversight?
Remember when we beat New Jersey without Curry with Zach as the starter?
Curry puts up better stats without Randolph. Doesn't necessarily mean we're a better team.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:42 am
by fimslim3
I don't think we'll find a GM dumb enough to trade for Randolph.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:44 am
by mjhp911
thank god isiah is dumb enough to not trade z-bo.
Don't be so sure about that. If push came to shove, I think Zeke might still go with his 'anointed one'. And I think it'd primarily be because he gave up so much for him (and he wouldn't want to look so stupid for giving up the farm for a mostly heartless man-child). If the packages were reversed, as in we only gave up Bum-chise and Frye for Curry, Zeke probably would favor Z-Bo, as he should.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:46 am
by marik1234xx
So would you like to point out our record WITH Z-Bo AND Curry? I'd love to hear it.
We were 29-34 at one point last year without Z-Bo and with Curry as the main man.
What's our record this year with just Z-Bo, or with both Z-Bo and Curry? I thought so. It's pretty obvious that it's Z-Bo that messed the team up this much in a year and actually made them worse.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:46 am
by Slimpack
mjhp911 wrote:thank god isiah is dumb enough to not trade z-bo.
Don't be so sure about that. If push came to shove, I think Zeke might still go with his 'anointed one'. And I think it'd primarily be because he gave up so much for him (and he wouldn't want to look so stupid for giving up the farm for a mostly heartless man-child). If the packages were reversed, as in we only gave up Bum-chise and Frye for Curry, Zeke probably would favor Z-Bo, as he should.
He'd look pretty dumb trading z-bo too though. We just got him.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:51 am
by mjhp911
marik1234xx wrote:So would you like to point out our record WITH Z-Bo AND Curry? I'd love to hear it.
We were 29-34 at one point last year without Z-Bo and with Curry as the main man.
What's our record this year with just Z-Bo, or with both Z-Bo and Curry? I thought so. It's pretty obvious that it's Z-Bo that messed the team up this much in a year and actually made them worse.
Okay, what if we got Mike Redd, and then JC starts to tank. Will be blame Redd for JC's demise? Redd is the better player, and JC should just roll with the punches, in my book. I'm proud of how JC has developed this season. But I still get irked when he takes a backseat to Marb, when both are on the floor. Tonight, they both shined, and I like that. They should both find ways to help their team and play well. Z-Bo remains aggressive no matter what. Even if he's playing bad. Curry just shrinks most of the time. He shouldn't.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 6:57 am
by TheBluest
marik1234xx wrote:So would you like to point out our record WITH Z-Bo AND Curry? I'd love to hear it.
We were 29-34 at one point last year without Z-Bo and with Curry as the main man.
What's our record this year with just Z-Bo, or with both Z-Bo and Curry? I thought so. It's pretty obvious that it's Z-Bo that messed the team up this much in a year and actually made them worse.
LOL We're 56-108 since acquiring Curry sans this season's acquisition of Randolph. Curry's stats mean absolutely nothing. That's of course if your bottom line is wins. If it's anything other than that, it's futile.
GET A GRIP!
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 7:12 am
by HarthorneWingo
Slimpack wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
He'd look pretty dumb trading z-bo too though. We just got him.
He looks pretty dumb trading for Zach. Why compound one bad move by making two bad moves. And, who amongst us cares what Isiah looks like to others so long as he starts making smarts moves to improve the team?
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 7:12 am
by StutterStep
Slimpack wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
He'd look pretty dumb trading z-bo too though. We just got him.
Getting ZBo was more about getting rid of Stevie and Frye, to a lesser extent.
He's just a contract, which is one of Isiah's main failing as a GM. He has to stop thinking of players as assets that can be moved when things go bad, and more along the lines of players as "building blocks". He really sees this team as an on-going project. Eventually he has to stand pat and make his charge.
Dolan tried to get that through to him last year, but Isiah's back at it again.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 7:15 am
by cmaff051
StutterStep wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Getting ZBo was more about getting rid of Stevie and Frye, to a lesser extent.
He's just a contract, which is one of Isiah's main failing as a GM. He has to stop thinking of players as assets that can be moved when things go bad, and more along the lines of players as "building blocks". He really sees this team as an on-going project. Eventually he has to stand pat and make his charge.
Dolan tried to get that through to him last year, but Isiah's back at it again.
Isiah's biggest problem as a GM = lack of a consistent vision
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 10:39 am
by duetta
cmaff051 wrote:Isiah's biggest problem as a GM = lack of a consistent vision
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 12:32 pm
by ICMTM
So what is Zach Randolph's problem? Is it that he doesn't have the right people around him? The right coach? I just know that he looked like an All Star in Portland every time the Kings played Portland. I've read he's a cancer otherwise having multiple off court issues. For someone who's looked so good at times on the court why can't he get it together?
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 12:59 pm
by knicks742
ICMTM wrote:So what is Zach Randolph's problem? Is it that he doesn't have the right people around him? The right coach? I just know that he looked like an All Star in Portland every time the Kings played Portland. I've read he's a cancer otherwise having multiple off court issues. For someone who's looked so good at times on the court why can't he get it together?
The main problem with Zach is that once you pass the ball to him, he tends to hold it and not pass it back out which kills the flow of the offense. When the rest of your team is built with guys whose main positive is scoring like us (Curry, Marbury, Crawford) then those other guys become less effective.
He is actually a phenomenal rebounder and you can tell he tries very hard most of the time. He reminds me a little of Iverson when he was in Philly. I think that Zach would be a great weapon in a team where there was only one other guy who should be taking shots and the rest of the guys are there to rebound, play defense and make the occassional open shot, much like the Sixers team that went to the Finals with Iverson.
Posted: Sat Jan 5, 2008 3:25 pm
by richardhutnik
knicks742 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
The main problem with Zach is that once you pass the ball to him, he tends to hold it and not pass it back out which kills the flow of the offense. When the rest of your team is built with guys whose main positive is scoring like us (Curry, Marbury, Crawford) then those other guys become less effective.
He is actually a phenomenal rebounder and you can tell he tries very hard most of the time. He reminds me a little of Iverson when he was in Philly. I think that Zach would be a great weapon in a team where there was only one other guy who should be taking shots and the rest of the guys are there to rebound, play defense and make the occassional open shot, much like the Sixers team that went to the Finals with Iverson.
Instead of a Twin Towers, the Knicks have a Twin Black Holes in the low post.
Theoretically it could work, but there were concerns in NY it wouldn't.
- Rich
