My take on this game...
1. I don't normally complain about ref calls but the refs screwed the Knicks a LOT throughout this game.
And it was more than just the 2 calls that the NBA came out and admitted the refs blew. Yep, the NBA actually came out and admitted that the refs blew at least 2 calls in the game (critical calls as it turned out).
https://nypost.com/2021/12/02/nba-admits-knicks-were-victim-of-two-bad-calls-vs-nets/2. Even though the refs were clearly skewing calls to the Nets favor, Randle still needs to not do stupid stuff like getting that tech and, more importantly, let it get to him and impact his game.
I mentioned during the NBNF post game podcast that I think part of the issues that Randle has had this season is with stupid stuff like this getting to him (and this type of stuff started really to be a problem in the Hawks series last season). Even if Randle is right that he's not getting calls because refs are telling him that he's too big and strong and that they miss calls (which according to Randle is what one of the refs actually told him) he can't let it get into his head. That's what top tier guys do, they don't let this stupid stuff impact their game. If Randle wants to be that guy and thinks he is, he needs to knock this **** off.
There's actually an interesting tidbit from Shaq about this very thing. Shaq, who probably more than anyone in NBA history this side of Wilt Chamberlain was the guy at the short end of these types of non calls. Shaq actually said that (when he was playing) one ref told him that he gets fouled every time he gets the ball but they can't keep calling the fouls LOL.
Both Shaq and Charles agreed with Randle but both said that you can't let it get to you and INSTEAD you just need to learn how to make sure that the other players know that if you're going to foul me cause you think they won't call it, that I'm going to make you feel it LOL. Now that won't work in today's NBA with all the ticky tack fouls but I think their point is that you counter these non calls by going at it even hard and more physically. Hopefully Randle doesn't stop attacking the basket because of this and start settling for 3's and those midrange 2's that just aren't falling for him. When Randle attacks the basket quickly when he sees an opening (not when the defense is set and he's doing his pound the ball to death thing) he's just impossible to stop.
3. Having Burks out there at the starting point actually outlines a problem that this team has had for quite a long time...often playing 3 or (at best) 4 on 5 every time they have the ball.
We all should know this but I get the sense that folks don't know it and see it well enough nor how significant an issue this problem is. Especially folks that keep on wanting to blame Randle for the fate of the Knicks.
Realize that up until 2 games ago, the Knicks starting PG since probably Jeremy Lin has been almost a none factor on most things offensively. Those things that you want and expect your starting PG to be able to do ESPECIALLY if you want to be a playoff team this team has simply NOT HAD. Now it's one thing that your starting PG can't really score at a high level BUT can execute offensives and get everyone else easy shots. But for the most part the Knicks starting PG hasn't even been able to do that right?
So what that does is it puts more pressure on someone playing another position than the position that should be responsible for these things to do it. Think about it. When you need someone other than your starting PG to basically create easy shots and get everyone involved it immediately puts your offense behind the 8-ball.
Now that may still be something you can live with IF the other 4 guys on the floor when you have the ball have some significant degree of offensive competency. The problem with the Knicks? They don't. And no it's not just Randle not being able to carry the load of a true no.1, it's their center basically being a none factor on the offensive end, no true no.2, etc.
Nerlens Noel and Mitchell Robinson have no offensive shot creation ability. They have no refined post moves. No mid range shot. No hook shots. No 3 point shots. Robinson can finish (though "Fat Mitch" isn't as good as he used to be in that area). Noel? Bad hands prevents him from being able to catch the type of passes that come before finishing. But even if Robinson gets back in shape and becomes more of a factor as a finisher and Noel finds some way of actually being able to hold onto a ball, not having a PG that can actually maximize their finishing ability is a killer. Robinson (in shape) being an elite finisher on paper doesn't mean much if he only gets a couple of those a game cause their PG's don't have the feel to maximize that on paper skill...and can't do anything else on offense otherwise.
The net result? We have to watch Randle try to do what he can't do and shouldn't need to do. One of the reasons why Randle seems to do better with Rose and Taj on the floor is that those are for the most part been the only PG and C that isn't offensively challenged. Their presence on the floor prevents teams from "simply" just focusing on him (Randle). And as a result Randle is more capable offensively. Players don't exist in a vacuum. How well they do is dependent on who else is on the floor. That's particularly true for guys that are not top tier superstars. The superstars can do what they do regardless of who else is on the floor with them. That's why they're superstars and get paid so much and win. Knicks don't have such a player so they MUST MUST MUST win by being a well balanced team.
I pointed out this offseason that one of the things that the Knicks needed is to find a C option that is not offensively challenged. Didn't have to be a starter. Just someone that can avoid having the Knicks always be at least one man short when the have the ball. And I've said as well that they need to look to acquire a PG (again doesn't even have to be a starting PG) that can actually get other players easy shots. That's especially important if you are going to have only 3 of the other 4 positions on the floor able to even do anything offensively on their own.
4. Glass is half full and half empty.
While I loved the way the Knicks competed against the Nets and that they should have won had the refs not been wearing Nets jerseys, the reality still is that they do not have enough talent at key positions (see above) to be able to get them where they need to go.
Even if Burks continues to average 20+ and do what he's done since he's been inserted into the starting lineup (unlikely to say the least) they still don't have enough. They need more talent. Hopefully IF the plan is to get as far as they can and win as much as possible (and thereby setting the stage for top tier players wanting to come here) that they continue to look to make some moves.
Guys like Jerami Grant (length and defensive versatility without giving up anything offensively) or Ricky Rubio (easy shots for others) or Kelly Olynyk (a C that can actually warrant being guarded when he's one the floor)...those are the types of guys that are more realistically gettable (unlike the Lillards and Beals of the world) and that while not world beating can significantly improve this teams by addressing holes in their current roster that contribute a lot to their current issues and the excessive need for their current players to be playing beyond reasonable expectations for them to be successful.
If you listen to most of the NBA pundits on the air the one clear near consensus is that regardless of how Thibs can get teams to perform, the Knicks simply don't have enough talent. And that's from Randle on down. And it's not just top tier talent, it's talent that can make this team a well rounded team so that a top tier coach like Thibs can actually get them further. A bigger stone for Thibs to attempt to wring blood from.