GT: Bobcats @ Knicks 7th January 2010

[Bassman]

That shot from the corner by diaw was the EXACT same play that you guys ran against toronto.

He was double-teamed and put up a tough shot over two guys and hit the side of the backboard...seriously, the exact same thing.

I have no idea why brown trusts diaw with that shot.

I do. I'm convinced LB has a man-crush on Diaw after last season and the "bonding" they did over the summer via the French national team. He doesn't see Boris clealy, and overvalues his contributions.

Last night I saw the entire game, recorded it, and wil review this again. But in my opinion, our lack of a post option doomed us on offense, and it killed us on interior D and rebounding. Without a post-up game, to pound the ball in low or draw double teams for kick-outs, it's hard be nothing more than a perimeter jmp-shooting team. Too often that's what happened last night. There was good ball movement and movement away from the ball in Q3, and we played the passing lanes well to create lots of turnovers, but the Knicks just took it to us in the 4th (and hit a lot of BIG shots). We tried trading jumpers with them but couldn't hang.

The Knicks are OK, but they are hardly a good team (and they were missing Harrington last night). We need a starting PF that can bring us a post game and help our rebounding matchups with other 4's. If Diaw stays he could be a great 6th man. If he's part of the trade, so be it. This team is better than they were for sure, but this gap is significant (along with the lack of consistency at the 5). Find a good PF trade and make it, and this team will be playoff bound (perhaps a 5th or 6th seed). Keep things as they are and we are pasrt of the scrum looking for playoff crumbs.

[Mezotarkus]

We need a starting PF that can bring us a post game and help our rebounding matchups with other 4's.

+1

[KnicksScholar24]

At the Bobcats V Raps game I was at last week they changed a basket that was called a 3 pointer to a 2 pointer after reviewing the footage during a time out.

If that answers your question?

Yeah, I remember that. But this one I don't think you could really tell by the replay, so I was wondering if they would stay with the call on the court.

i think this was the case. if they called it a 3 (which i think it was, but i can see they claiming lack of enough evidence) it would have held

I think that's more the case in the NFL. You need undeniable evident to overturn an NFL call, and if you don't have that the play on the field stands. In the NBA, it doesn't matter what the call on the court was. In fact, from what I've seen, the harder the call is to make on the replay the more likely the ref will rule on the side not benefiting the offensive player.

In other words, the longer they take to make the call the more likelihood that a positive/beneficial offensive play will be overruled (i.e. a questionable 3-pointer will be called a 2, or a last second shot will be called no good). If the ref had called Jackson shot (which took major balls to take) had called it a 3 (which I thought is was a 3 on the replay), if would have most likely still have been ruled a 2. I guarantee you this will the case on the next few replays you see. The longer the refs take to decide, the less likely it is going to benefit the offensive player.

The call made a big difference, but it wasn't a game changer. The following long 3 by Gallinari was the dagger. It made it a 2 possession game. Had Gallinari missed that, the Bobcats could have came down and score and took the lead. The way things were going before that point it seemed like it was destined for overtime (hadn't the score been staggered).