HINrichPolice wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:HINrichPolice wrote:Bulls fan here. I think you all are being too tough on your team, at least based on last night's performance. The reality is that the Bulls are a legitimately good team, and losing to the Bulls in a relatively close game should no longer be something to feel bad about.
Your team is better
Our team is not gelling and there will have to be significant changes
It is what it is, but I don’t think we’re in denial. As fans we’re facing the music for the most part
For someone that hasn't been following the Knicks, I thought you guys started off great. The loss to the Knicks earlier this season made me feel like the Bulls were still at or below whatever tier the Knicks are on.
I think you all just force fed Randle because the Bulls were playing small, and in theory, that would be a smart way to play, but our guys just have abnormally active hands and are effective at doubling. That's the Bulls being good more than the Knicks being bad.
Still really like the talent you all have. Quickley is a beast, Toppin showed flashes, and I think vets like Walker and Fournier figure it out throughout the season. RJ was a legit problem in our first matchup. Didn't realize you all were so down on him.
Yes and no. I think the query/debate that is going on is whether the reason why the Knicks are struggling on offense because they go to Randle so much or is it because they just don't have another consistent top tier shot creator and, therefore, are forced to go to Randle so much.
I think the general consensus on this board is that the Knicks go to Randle too much and that it bogs the offense down. I don't think too many Knick fans disagree with that.
The discussion points center around what are the alternatives.
The Bulls, for example, have 2 elite shot creators (Derozan and Lavine). What that means it's not near as easy to defend the Bulls than it is the Knicks. The Hawks in the playoffs basically printed out the "How to defend the Knicks" handbook to a tee. You do whatever it takes to hound and bother Randle when the ball goes to him (and it inevitably has to cause the Knicks don't have another top tier shot creator). Throw Randle off his game and the "Bad Randle" starts coming out. Then the cascading effect down stream to everyone else.
Of course, the counter argument is that ok, you don't go to Randle as much but then what? Someone has to be the focal point and be able to score especially when you play the better teams in the NBA who have guys that can defend real well. Rose is at a point in his career where he simply cannot play more than about 20-25 minutes a night. You can see him on tail ends of back to backs or every other game or so being with tired legs. Walker is too close to being just worth the $9 million that the Knicks are paying him and not the "big bargain" that they thought they were getting. No one else on this team has had any history anywhere that they can be a primary option.
Ergo...back to Randle.
So it's kind of a Rock and a Hard Place here. Why many of us have been really crying (bitching, moaning, etc.) for the Knicks front office to find another top tier shot creator to pair with Randle so the chances of "Bad Randle" coming out is less. Hasn't happened yet. And the concern is that, based on 30+ years of recent Knick history, where the Knicks front office has consistently failed to add another star to the one star they've managed to have ultimately always left the Knicks out in the cold, it may not happen with this regime either.