Knicks@Kings
Knicks@Kings
- Wolfay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,656
- And1: 649
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Knicks@Kings
I guess a-rod is busy.
Honestly I'm not very optimistic, especially if that gimmick lineup turns out to be true.
Have at it folks.
Honestly I'm not very optimistic, especially if that gimmick lineup turns out to be true.
Have at it folks.
Re: Knicks@Kings
- KingInExile
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 14,416
- And1: 4
- Joined: May 25, 2004
- Location: RIP Wayman Tisdale...You left us way too early.
Re: Knicks@Kings
According to Jason Jones' pre-game blog...
Paul Westphal is still being coy, only agreeing to speak about the new starting lineup hypothetically during his pregame media time.
That (hypothetical) lineup is:
G Tyreke Evans
G Luther Head
C Samuel Dalembert
F Jason Thompson
F Carl Landry
This space needs to be filled with a new sig...but I'm too lazy to make one.
Re: Knicks@Kings
-
- Forum Mod - Kings
- Posts: 25,434
- And1: 5,537
- Joined: Jul 28, 2006
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
Bleh. I don't like the fact that Thompson is the starting SF. Like I said in the past, what's good having him at that position if he is not exploiting his opponent on the other end (having Thompson posting him up)?
Also, if you guys noticed when we put Thompson as the SF, this encourages teams to pack the paint. Other than Head, there is no perimeter shooting in that lineup. This would limit Evans drives and kicks.
The lineup just screams "PACK THE PAINT" to other teams.
Also, if you guys noticed when we put Thompson as the SF, this encourages teams to pack the paint. Other than Head, there is no perimeter shooting in that lineup. This would limit Evans drives and kicks.
The lineup just screams "PACK THE PAINT" to other teams.
Re: Knicks@Kings
- Wolfay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,656
- And1: 649
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
KF10 wrote:The lineup just screams "PACK THE PAINT" to other teams.
It screams a lot more than that. The league must think we're a joke.
Re: Knicks@Kings
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 764
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 05, 2006
Re: Knicks@Kings
Ive always been a fan og PW but today...fire him plz.
Re: Knicks@Kings
- YC42Balla
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,054
- And1: 62
- Joined: May 30, 2010
- Location: NorCal
Re: Knicks@Kings
Lmao, I don't know about you guys.. but I'm actually happy to see something new in the lineup. This will be interesting to say the least. I also like seeing JT get the start. I don't care where it's at. Let's go JT!! Prove all those haters wrong!!
*Edit* --I say it screams.. "REBOUNDS and Blocks"!! haha.

Wolfay wrote:KF10 wrote:The lineup just screams "PACK THE PAINT" to other teams.
It screams a lot more than that. The league must think we're a joke.
*Edit* --I say it screams.. "REBOUNDS and Blocks"!! haha.
SAC-RA-MEN-TO #HEREWESTAYED
Re: Knicks@Kings
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 764
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 05, 2006
Re: Knicks@Kings
it's not so much that JT is starting, it's just there were so many different lineups they could have chosen.
Re: Knicks@Kings
- twoolfork1
- Junior
- Posts: 463
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 19, 2010
- Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Knicks@Kings
Definatly a good start so far. Dont get this lineup tho. JT starting at the 3? Also, I don't think Head deserves to start. I guess he's quicker than Udrih
White Mamba

Re: Knicks@Kings
- ADoaN17
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,044
- And1: 312
- Joined: Feb 11, 2010
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
twoolfork1 wrote:Definatly a good start so far. Dont get this lineup tho. JT starting at the 3? Also, I don't think Head deserves to start. I guess he's quicker than Udrih
Jim Grays says PW said the lineup is for defense.

Re: Knicks@Kings
- Wolfay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,656
- And1: 649
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
- Wolfay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 7,656
- And1: 649
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
Jerry just said the Knicks players were overrated! LOL. I love Jerry, he speaks truth.
Re: Knicks@Kings
- pillwenney
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 48,887
- And1: 2,603
- Joined: Sep 19, 2004
- Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
- Contact:
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
Wolfay wrote:Are we playing good or are the Knicks playing bad? Maybe I'm just dreaming.
Definitely a bit of both. They were just missing shots. Now they're playing poorly. We're doing alright here though.
And Demarcus is playing by far his best D of the year. Like, I don't know where this is coming from.
Re: Knicks@Kings
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: Knicks@Kings
Cousins is a beast
Re: Knicks@Kings
- AnDrOiDKing4
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,173
- And1: 57
- Joined: Jan 26, 2005
- Location: Hiding from Kobe's Elbow
-
Re: Knicks@Kings
Lol the Knicks are soo bad and Jerry just said how they overate all their players
Amare is still bad they paid all that money for guy that doesnt pass the ball , play defense or rebounds.

Amare is still bad they paid all that money for guy that doesnt pass the ball , play defense or rebounds.
Lamak wrote:His playstyle is very similar to Derrick Rose, but asian.
Re: Knicks@Kings
- PaKwAn
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,006
- And1: 1,564
- Joined: Dec 04, 2007
Re: Knicks@Kings
i dont really like how reke plays... forcing things too much
Re: Knicks@Kings
- KingInExile
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 14,416
- And1: 4
- Joined: May 25, 2004
- Location: RIP Wayman Tisdale...You left us way too early.
Re: Knicks@Kings
The starting lineup is certainly not what I would have proposed as my "dream team", but I won't argue with the results. The Knicks may be playing tired given that this is the 2nd of a back to back for them (and they do look sluggish). However you still have to be impressed with the overall performance in the 1st.
This space needs to be filled with a new sig...but I'm too lazy to make one.
Re: Knicks@Kings
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: Knicks@Kings
Since Beno came in I'm seeing way too much guard domination, and not the right kind.