Crawford our future PG?

djsunyc · Post #21 » by **djsunyc** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:48 pm

since bonespurgate...

bigs = zach + eddy + lee fga's
guards = jamal + nate + q fga's

game    bigs   guards
det     31     25
was     27     40
@nj     27     44
@was    25     43

Big C · Post #22 » by **Big C** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:59 pm

Ignitowsky wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Richardson has always been a volume shooter. The year he led the league in 3pointers made he shot less than 36% from behind the arc, and had Nash to feed him the ball. That same year he shot less than 39% from the field. The only year he's shot over 40% from the field since the 01-02 season was actually last season. For his career, he's shot about 39% from the field and 35% from behind the arc. Injuries have been a factor, but the truth is he isn't a great shooter, not even close.

Agreed. This is what I have always felt. People would criticize Jamal's shooting and never look at Q shooting for his whole career. It was funny when people said Crawford can't shoot let's make Q the shooting guard.

Injuries have not messed up his shooting. What I was really referring to was Q's mobility. Right now he is one big stiff. At least earlier in his career Q would drive to the hole or post up. Right now Q is a player that drives to the lane 7 times a year.

Post #23 » by **moocow007** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:28 pm

Capn'O wrote:Well, he's certainly our PG now.

I think he and Rose would work very well in tandom since Rose is so adept at moving the ball. Craw would get more open looks and room to create.

That is kinda true. Rose is a taller and very strong PG that can score and projects to be a strong defensive player. Crawford is a shortish SG that can play the point and hit from outside. They would complement each other pretty well.

But IMHO the Knicks, barring a lucky bounce of the pingpong balls is probably not going to be in any range to get Rose. At which point I think you start looking at seeing what else is out there that might be around.

Asking yourself if someone like Nicolas Batum would look good next to Crawford in the backcourt?

If maybe someone like Brook Lopez would look good next to Randolph (assuming they don't deal him) and then affording the Knicks to option of moving Curry for another 1st?

If Donte Greene (who is supposed still growing) the next great NBA SF or the next great NBA bust?

If DeAndre Jordan really can come anywhere close to Dwight Howard or will it be that he can't even come close to the next Alton Lister?

If Jaryd Bayless really is "just as good" as Derrick Rose?

Based on this team, their history, their luck, Isiah Thomas' predicament, how awful the other teams behind them are and how, unlike Isiah, the other GM's aren't in a position to lose their jobs if they lose, the KNicks probably will end up in the 5-10 range in the lottery.

Post #24 » by **mjhp911** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:29 pm

Crawford our future PG?

I'm fine with that. Just as long as we get a pure point to back him up next season. Preferably, a wiser, older PG who doesn't break down as much as Knight or Cassell (yeah, where can we find one of those?!). At some point, we still also have to start thinking about a real successor there. Whether in the draft, or the FA pool.

Post #25 » by **moocow007** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:31 pm

mjhp911 wrote:
Crawford our future PG?

I'm fine with that. Just as long as we get a pure point to back him up next season. Preferably, a wiser, older PG who doesn't break down as much as Knight or Cassell (yeah, where can we find one of those?!). At some point, we still also have to start thinking about a real successor there. Whether in the draft, or the FA pool.

Yeah if the PG's in this draft are gone by the time the Knicks pick, it doesn't look like the Knicks have much of a choice. It's either Crawford or Nate Robinson (who has been passing out assists like someone knocked him on the head and convinced him he's John Stockton) for now.

randomhero423 · Post #26 » by **randomhero423** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:44 pm

^

aslong as our plan for that season involves tanking as well. i'm w/ ya.

albert · Post #27 » by **albert** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:58 pm

Now we can move Q back to his original SG position and SF is open for Balkman or Jeffries.

Post #28 » by **moocow007** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:58 pm

randomhero423 wrote:^

aslong as our plan for that season involves tanking as well. i'm w/ ya.

No problem with tanking but just seems like there are too many teams with bigger tanks right now.

Smoke24 · Post #29 » by **Smoke24** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:36 am

If the NBA really want the Knicks to do well, they should fix the draft so we can geta top 3 pick.