PG: Uplifting Victory! 11/20

[Chanel Bomber]

So in 2020 play offs (closer to a YEAR ago). His offensive numbers were solid. Even versus the Lakers he averaged 16 pts a game on .50 shooting....in the Western Conference finals. His handles have improved . Dude is a major reason they even made it that far,. I think he'd fit very well between JR and RJ and would restore defensive cohesion to our starting lineup.

But he did so playing the 4.

Whatever he did then (11.6 ppg, -11.5 on/off per 100 in the 2020 playoffs, it's not like he was contributing like crazy, he was a role player), is not translatable to the Knicks. He would be playing a different position and a different role here, which his skill set isn't suited for.

The Knicks would be playing two Randles at the same time - except one is a better passer than the other, and the other a better defender.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

[evevale]

is it 8 yet

No and Moo has gone AWOL. He's shook by success

I don't care about his GT - I'm just bored and want to watch something

[TheGreenArrow]

Where is the game thread??!!??!!??!!?!!!!????!!?????!!!!!!!!!!

MOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Clyde_Style]

is it 8 yet

No and Moo has gone AWOL. He's shook by success

I don't care about his GT - I'm just bored and want to watch something

[HarthorneWingo]

is it 8 yet

No and Moo has gone AWOL. He's shook by success

I don't care about his GT - I'm just bored and want to watch something

Re-watch the 4th quarter of last night's game!

Btw, you should meet my boy here. He's really bored too.

Spoiler:

[Buttah304]

But he did so playing the 4.

Whatever he did then (11.6 ppg, -11.5 on/off per 100 in the 2020 playoffs, it's not like he was contributing like crazy, he was a role player), is not translatable to the Knicks. He would be playing a different position and a different role here, which his skill set isn't suited for.

The Knicks would be playing two Randles at the same time - except one is a better passer than the other, and the other a better defender.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

LOL at trading for Grant. We would officially have the 40% FG Brothers: RJ-Grant-JR

ESPN 30 for 30: What if I told you the Knicks supposed stars all went 4–15 on the same night

[NYKat]

This team looks mind f*cked

[Richard4444]

But he did so playing the 4.

Whatever he did then (11.6 ppg, -11.5 on/off per 100 in the 2020 playoffs, it's not like he was contributing like crazy, he was a role player), is not translatable to the Knicks. He would be playing a different position and a different role here, which his skill set isn't suited for.

The Knicks would be playing two Randles at the same time - except one is a better passer than the other, and the other a better defender.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

Grant had 35% from 3 past season. It's not bad considering he was the only good Detroit"s player (the opponent's defensive scheme was built to stop him) and had 6 attempts for the game (almost double of the previous seasons). This season he started bad (like a ton of players) but it's improving and already hit 31%.

[FrozenEnvelope]

I think some of you are going to get your wish because we are about to go on a long losing streak unless we start playing a lot better. You couldn't tell which was the two win team last night. That was awful! Thank the heavens Burks was able to save us in the fourth! But this game did little to fix the ongoing issues with this team. The SL tries to move the ball and defend but right now it's just not working. There is very little chemistry. Roles are not defined. Randle and RJ continue to struggle to make shots. Rose is also starting to get into a funk. Fournier finally made shots but let's see if he can do it tonight. Nice to have Noel back.

For those who still enjoy winning, try to enjoy this one because it might be the last one for awhile unless these guys get their head out their *!

If you see this now then why were you dumping on most of us right up to the other day for speaking the truth?

I'm dumping at those idiots who say stupid **** like Thibs is Fizdale and they want Frank back.

[Clyde_Style]

I think some of you are going to get your wish because we are about to go on a long losing streak unless we start playing a lot better. You couldn't tell which was the two win team last night. That was awful! Thank the heavens Burks was able to save us in the fourth! But this game did little to fix the ongoing issues with this team. The SL tries to move the ball and defend but right now it's just not working. There is very little chemistry. Roles are not defined. Randle and RJ continue to struggle to make shots. Rose is also starting to get into a funk. Fournier finally made shots but let's see if he can do it tonight. Nice to have Noel back.

For those who still enjoy winning, try to enjoy this one because it might be the last one for awhile unless these guys get their head out their *!

If you see this now then why were you dumping on most of us right up to the other day for speaking the truth?

I'm dumping at those idiots who say stupid **** like Thibs is Fizdale and they want Frank back.

I think those are mostly jests. At least that’s how I took Thibsdale

[RHODEY]

But he did so playing the 4.

Whatever he did then (11.6 ppg, -11.5 on/off per 100 in the 2020 playoffs, it's not like he was contributing like crazy, he was a role player), is not translatable to the Knicks. He would be playing a different position and a different role here, which his skill set isn't suited for.

The Knicks would be playing two Randles at the same time - except one is a better passer than the other, and the other a better defender.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

Eh but he's good though, Dropped like 30 the other night vs the Lakes...If he was that good we'd have to give up the farm. Im trying to think of realistic trades...he's would be great for us IMO, he's not Bullock true, but he's like a more versatile 3&D Plus type, doesnt need the ball...and get-table...but yeah we disagree so....

[RHODEY]

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

LOL at trading for Grant. We would officially have the 40% FG Brothers: RJ-Grant-JR

ESPN 30 for 30: What if I told you the Knicks supposed stars all went 4–15 on the same night

I'll trade you one lol for a bigger LOL..

LOL @ Fournier guarding anything more than a door...

[RHODEY]

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

Grant had 35% from 3 past season. It's not bad considering he was the only good Detroit"s player (the opponent's defensive scheme was built to stop him) and had 6 attempts for the game (almost double of the previous seasons). This season he started bad (like a ton of players) but it's improving and already hit 31%.

Yep and his defense and athleticism are massive upgrades..

But hey I guess we can afford to turn our noses up because our starting lineup is just bursting at the seems with athleticism and defense

[Chanel Bomber]

We'll have to agree to disagree I think it would be translatable. He'd be filling the same roll as Bullock only with way better versatility on both sides of the ball. Randle cant guard 1-5 positions.

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

Eh but he's good though, Dropped like 30 the other night vs the Lakes...If he was that good we'd have to give up the farm. Im trying to think of realistic trades...he's would be great for us IMO, he's not Bullock true, but he's like a more versatile 3&D Plus type, doesnt need the ball...and get-table...but yeah we disagree so....

What we need is precisely a talent you have to trade the farm for, or other teams would trade the farm for.

The only player who fits that description that we've had in the last 20 years was Melo. Unsurprisingly, it's the only time the Knicks had a legitimately good team, even if for one year.

Trading assets for Grant is just treading water.

[RHODEY]

We can disagree for sure, but Grant wouldn't be filling the same role as Bullock.

Bullock is a 3-point shooter who can spot-up, navigate screens on the weak side and take quick-release 3s.

Grant doesn't do any of that. That's not his game.

Actually, Grant had two good years from 3 but he's been a poor 3-point shooter throughout most of his career, including the last two years.

He's not that good bro.

Trading for him would further cement our fate as a treadmill team. RJ-Grant-Randle is a nightmare of inefficiency.

Eh but he's good though, Dropped like 30 the other night vs the Lakes...If he was that good we'd have to give up the farm. Im trying to think of realistic trades...he's would be great for us IMO, he's not Bullock true, but he's like a more versatile 3&D Plus type, doesnt need the ball...and get-table...but yeah we disagree so....

What we need is precisely a talent you have to trade the farm for, or other teams would trade the farm for.

The only player who fits that description that we've had in the last 20 years was Melo. Unsurprisingly, it's the only time the Knicks had a legitimately good team, even if for one year.

Trading assets for Grant is just treading water.

You mean the team that lost to the Pacers in the 2nd Round because the wheels fell off, because we had to settle for old vets, because we had to trade the farm for Melo?

No I think this team needs players in the starting line up that can defend, score and basically fit a team concept.That team beats scrubs like Orlando and even good teams like Chicago. Would that team be a true contender? Nope not right now but they still have some upside and the assets to maybe become one later. The gutted team (that likely still loses in the 2nd round) would not.

[Chanel Bomber]

Eh but he's good though, Dropped like 30 the other night vs the Lakes...If he was that good we'd have to give up the farm. Im trying to think of realistic trades...he's would be great for us IMO, he's not Bullock true, but he's like a more versatile 3&D Plus type, doesnt need the ball...and get-table...but yeah we disagree so....

What we need is precisely a talent you have to trade the farm for, or other teams would trade the farm for.

The only player who fits that description that we've had in the last 20 years was Melo. Unsurprisingly, it's the only time the Knicks had a legitimately good team, even if for one year.

Trading assets for Grant is just treading water.

You mean the team that lost to the Pacers because the wheels fell off, because we had to settle for old vets, because we had to trade the farm for Melo?

No I think this team needs players in the starting line up that can defend score and basically fit a team concept.That team beats scrubs like Orlando and even good teams like Chicago. Would that team be a contender? Nope not right now but they still have some upside and the assets to maybe become one later. The gutted team wouldn't.

A team without a superstar has no upside.

Knicks either need to go all in or tank.

I'm pro-tank because there's no superstar on the market. The ones that might be are too old.

The Knicks were elite without Stoudemire. Melo played with a significant shoulder injury that hampered him in the Pacers series.

It's the only season in the last 20 years where the Knicks were relevant.

Also the Knicks couldn't keep both Chandler and Gallinari if they were to sign Tyson even if Melo had waited until free agency. Tyson who was more important to us than Wilson or Gallo would've ever been - they were always injured during those years. They barely played. How can you contribute or be an asset when you don't play.

[RHODEY]

What we need is precisely a talent you have to trade the farm for, or other teams would trade the farm for.

The only player who fits that description that we've had in the last 20 years was Melo. Unsurprisingly, it's the only time the Knicks had a legitimately good team, even if for one year.

Trading assets for Grant is just treading water.

You mean the team that lost to the Pacers because the wheels fell off, because we had to settle for old vets, because we had to trade the farm for Melo?

No I think this team needs players in the starting line up that can defend score and basically fit a team concept.That team beats scrubs like Orlando and even good teams like Chicago. Would that team be a contender? Nope not right now but they still have some upside and the assets to maybe become one later. The gutted team wouldn't.

A team without a superstar has no upside.

Knicks either need to go all in or tank.

I'm pro-tank because there's no superstar on the market. The ones that might be are too old.

Thats fair....to a point. There is still upside but maybe not Championship upside. Right now I'd settle for ECF upside.

The Knicks were elite without Stoudemire. Melo played with a significant shoulder injury that hampered him in the Pacers series.

It's the only season in the last 20 years where the Knicks were relevant.

Thats arguable.. .but not something I care to argue right now

Also the Knicks couldn't keep both Chandler and Gallinari if they were to sign Tyson even if Melo had waited until free agency. Tyson who was more important to us than Wilson or Gallo would've ever been - they were always injured during those years. They barely played. How can you contribute or be an asset when you don't play.

Im not going that that rabbit whole...I'll just say think we sorely missed that depth.

[Chanel Bomber]

You mean the team that lost to the Pacers because the wheels fell off, because we had to settle for old vets, because we had to trade the farm for Melo?

No I think this team needs players in the starting line up that can defend score and basically fit a team concept.That team beats scrubs like Orlando and even good teams like Chicago. Would that team be a contender? Nope not right now but they still have some upside and the assets to maybe become one later. The gutted team wouldn't.

A team without a superstar has no upside.

Knicks either need to go all in or tank.

I'm pro-tank because there's no superstar on the market. The ones that might be are too old.

Thats fair....to a point. There is still upside but maybe not Championship upside. Right now I'd settle for ECF upside.

The Knicks were elite without Stoudemire. Melo played with a significant shoulder injury that hampered him in the Pacers series.

It's the only season in the last 20 years where the Knicks were relevant.

Thats arguable.. .but not something I care to argue right now

Also the Knicks couldn't keep both Chandler and Gallinari if they were to sign Tyson even if Melo had waited until free agency. Tyson who was more important to us than Wilson or Gallo would've ever been - they were always injured during those years. They barely played. How can you contribute or be an asset when you don't play.

Im not going that that rabbit whole...I'll just say think we sorely missed that depth.

Sure we don't have to revisit the Melo years, although that's my one field of expertise in life.

I think the ceiling of this core is first round. Six games tops.

I don't see a team with RJ and Randle passing a single playoff round. Not now, not next year, not in two years, not in three years. Even if you added Grant.

If you traded all our assets for Dame, then maybe our ceiling is ECF. Dame only reached the Conference Finals once though, so he doesn't guarantee you anything either.

I do like Quick and Obi though, but they need to be trusted.

[RHODEY]

A team without a superstar has no upside.

Knicks either need to go all in or tank.

I'm pro-tank because there's no superstar on the market. The ones that might be are too old.

Thats fair....to a point. There is still upside but maybe not Championship upside. Right now I'd settle for ECF upside.

The Knicks were elite without Stoudemire. Melo played with a significant shoulder injury that hampered him in the Pacers series.

It's the only season in the last 20 years where the Knicks were relevant.

Thats arguable.. .but not something I care to argue right now

Also the Knicks couldn't keep both Chandler and Gallinari if they were to sign Tyson even if Melo had waited until free agency. Tyson who was more important to us than Wilson or Gallo would've ever been - they were always injured during those years. They barely played. How can you contribute or be an asset when you don't play.

Im not going that that rabbit whole...I'll just say think we sorely missed that depth.

Sure we don't have to revisit the Melo years, although that's my one field of expertise in life.

I think the ceiling of this core is first round. Six games tops.

I don't see a team with RJ and Randle passing a single playoff round. Not now, not next year, not in two years, not in three years. Even if you added Grant.

If you traded all our assets for Dame, then maybe our ceiling is ECF. Dame only reached the Conference Finals once though, so he doesn't guarantee you anything either.

I do like Quick and Obi though, but they need to be trusted.

Portland Trailblazers East wouldn't make it past the first round either IMO.

Add Grant while while removing fournier- and somehow getting some more play making out of the 1 spot ... we go to the 2nd round at least IMO.