Knicks · If all 3 where in their prime who would you want on this team today Starks,Houston or spree (page 4)

Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

Spree all day every day.

Carmelo Anthony and Allan Houston would compliment each other like Paul Pierce and Ray Allen did, IMO a pure combination of offensive styles

Sprewell, Shumpert, Brewer, Anthony Chandler would be a helluva line up as well

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

Starks shot 2-14 and tarnished Ewing's best chance at a ring.

Sometimes its better to do ONE thing really well at an elite level than do a little of everything but then go up against a guy like Lebron/Jordan and get outclassed

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

I remember John Starks getting repeatedly torched by Reggie Miller, Michael Jordan, Steve Smith, Glen Rice , Penny Hardaway and every other shooting guard of SF over 6'4, Starks was undersized at the SG position even though he was listed at 6'5 he was actually 6'3 so lets not act like he was Bruce Bowen, he played hard and I loved him but Houston had size and a beautiful all around offensive game and I would rather have him on my team if I was trying to win a championship.

DurzoBlint wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:I have been watching likely longer than you have been alive....I said that already. Also, Novak camps out on the 3 but, he's not just a 3 point shooter, its just how we utilized him. He has a mid-range jump shot. The only real difference is that Houston can get his own shot off. He wasn't a slasher or anything like that so, as I said, you still haven't answered my question unless your saying the difference is that Houston took a lot more midrange jump shots. He was never really that big about moving without the ball, you must be confusing him with Miller. Yeah, that's a huge difference.

With this post, I'm not argueing with you anymore because you're obviously trolling. Either that, or you come up with things very deep from the abyss of your arshole. I did answer your question and you obviously haven't been watching the Knicks much. In fact, you obviously don't watch the Knicks now. There has not been one time in Novaks pro career where he was utilized as a mid range player. If he had a midrange game, believe me, he would have been used because in this era, finding a mid range player is almost like hitting the lotto. There just aren't anymore of those players who are efficient like how Allan, Ray, Rip Hamilton, and Miller were.

Durzo, there are a lot of old Knicks games on Youtube now. If you don't want to trust my word that Allan didn't move without the ball then feel free to check out some of those games. You're point has already been proven wrong but now you'll be able to actually watch it.

Enjoy the boards and hopefully you can start making posts a lot better than what you have. This wasn't your best showing.

Just because we disagree or can't come to a common ground does not make me a troll...it makes me an individual! Sometimes people need to learn to agree to disagree and respect each others opinion. I don't have a problem with you seeing things differently.

Don't mean to disrespect your opinion at all. I was just trying to portray that Allan was more than just a shooter and it seemed to go through one ear and out the other. Yes, I agree that most of his scoring came from shooting, but he was a solid passer despite the low assist numbers and he was a better man to man defender than people think. He was decent, not bad.

And yes, he was a good post up guard.

Allanfan20 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:I have been watching likely longer than you have been alive....I said that already. Also, Novak camps out on the 3 but, he's not just a 3 point shooter, its just how we utilized him. He has a mid-range jump shot. The only real difference is that Houston can get his own shot off. He wasn't a slasher or anything like that so, as I said, you still haven't answered my question unless your saying the difference is that Houston took a lot more midrange jump shots. He was never really that big about moving without the ball, you must be confusing him with Miller. Yeah, that's a huge difference.

With this post, I'm not argueing with you anymore because you're obviously trolling. Either that, or you come up with things very deep from the abyss of your arshole. I did answer your question and you obviously haven't been watching the Knicks much. In fact, you obviously don't watch the Knicks now. There has not been one time in Novaks pro career where he was utilized as a mid range player. If he had a midrange game, believe me, he would have been used because in this era, finding a mid range player is almost like hitting the lotto. There just aren't anymore of those players who are efficient like how Allan, Ray, Rip Hamilton, and Miller were.

Durzo, there are a lot of old Knicks games on Youtube now. If you don't want to trust my word that Allan didn't move without the ball then feel free to check out some of those games. You're point has already been proven wrong but now you'll be able to actually watch it.

Enjoy the boards and hopefully you can start making posts a lot better than what you have. This wasn't your best showing.

Just because we disagree or can't come to a common ground does not make me a troll...it makes me an individual! Sometimes people need to learn to agree to disagree and respect each others opinion. I don't have a problem with you seeing things differently.

Don't mean to disrespect your opinion at all. I was just trying to portray that Allan was more than just a shooter and it seemed to go through one ear and out the other. Yes, I agree that most of his scoring came from shooting, but he was a solid passer despite the low assist numbers and he was a better man to man defender than people think. He was decent, not bad.

And yes, he was a good post up guard.

H20 gets a lot of hate because Dolan gave him as much as he could. But the dude could flat out ball and what he offered offensively is the definition of what you want from a 2. I was fortunate enough to go to the Garden for many of the big games during his career... and it was crazy how many 'quiet' 20+ point games he would have. That probably contributes to his lack of props too, but when you think about it, it means he was incredibly efficient and never forced the action. If you put him on the 94 Finals team, the Knicks easily win the championship

I would take Sprewell-

93BUICK wrote:I would take Sprewell-

depends on the day for me... I'm torn between Spree and Houston. Always loved Starks and his heart but he was always undersized and elites 2s chewed him up. I remember when Pat the Rat used to alternate between Starks and Mason on Jordan. starks also had a talent for bringing out the best in Reggie

gunsnewing wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

Starks shot 2-14 and tarnished Ewing's best chance at a ring.

Sometimes its better to do ONE thing really well at an elite level than do a little of everything but then go up against a guy like Lebron/Jordan and get outclassed

Who wouldn't get outclassed against Lebron and Jordan?

Mray20 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

I remember John Starks getting repeatedly torched by Reggie Miller, Michael Jordan, Steve Smith, Glen Rice , Penny Hardaway and every other shooting guard of SF over 6'4, Starks was undersized at the SG position even though he was listed at 6'5 he was actually 6'3 so lets not act like he was Bruce Bowen, he played hard and I loved him but Houston had size and a beautiful all around offensive game and I would rather have him on my team if I was trying to win a championship.

I know you guys love Houston, but he was a way worse defender than Starks. Starks played against a ton of great shooting guards, something Houston's era lacked. Going against Jordan, Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, Hersey Hawkins, Glenn Rice, Jeff Hornacek, etc is no easy task. True Starks was undersized, but he played great man to man, as well as, team defense evident by his '93 All Defensive team. Houston would be a liability in today's NBA, sorta like a Novak, can't use him extensively because his guy would always torch him. Tell me who didn't get torched by Miller or Jordan in their primes LOL. Another thing Starks teams won way way more than Houston's teams ever did, so I'd take him getting torched individually for more overall team success.

Houston would be no more of a liability than what ray allen was for the celtics. The game is not all abput defense. You can gwt by beating bad to medoicre teams with defensive for you dont stand a chance against the old bulls, miami, LA & okc if you dont match guys like lebron, kobe and durant offensively. You dont stand a chance actually

I don't think it's fair to say Starks team won way more than Houston's because Starks played with Ewing when he was in his prime and Patrick carried those teams even though he never had a second star with him, by the time Houston got there Patrick was on the decline. I don't know how much of a better defender Starks actually was but the big difference is even though Houston wasn't a great defender whoever scored on him such as Miller, Steve Smith, Rice, Richmond etc was going to get it right back when Houston got the ball because guys had to pay attention to him because he could score in so many ways. Starks was limited offensively even though he gave it his all, i respect the dude I don't even get mad at 2-18 in the finals because if it wasn't for his great play that year they never would have even made it that far. All I'm saying is Allan Houston at shooting guard is what time team or any Knick team would benefit the most from as opposed to a undersized and streaky Starks.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Mray20 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

I remember John Starks getting repeatedly torched by Reggie Miller, Michael Jordan, Steve Smith, Glen Rice , Penny Hardaway and every other shooting guard of SF over 6'4, Starks was undersized at the SG position even though he was listed at 6'5 he was actually 6'3 so lets not act like he was Bruce Bowen, he played hard and I loved him but Houston had size and a beautiful all around offensive game and I would rather have him on my team if I was trying to win a championship.

I know you guys love Houston, but he was a way worse defender than Starks. Starks played against a ton of great shooting guards, something Houston's era lacked. Going against Jordan, Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, Hersey Hawkins, Glenn Rice, Jeff Hornacek, etc is no easy task. True Starks was undersized, but he played great man to man, as well as, team defense evident by his '93 All Defensive team. Houston would be a liability in today's NBA, sorta like a Novak, can't use him extensively because his guy would always torch him. Tell me who didn't get torched by Miller or Jordan in their primes LOL. Another thing Starks teams won way way more than Houston's teams ever did, so I'd take him getting torched individually for more overall team success.

When your playing with hard nose defensive players like Oak, Ewing, mase, kt, X danial..Your guards can be avg defenders, not to mention having a defensive minded coach.

I just finish watching some video on sprewell (who will always be my favorite knick) and I think it's really a toss between him and allan..sprees 48 point game against his home team the bucks, was so impressive.. but the what seperates starks and spree from allan..Those 2 guys were as streaky as hell..The 48 point game spree had, well he was 1-9 at the half with 6 points..

knicks1248 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Mray20 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Houston was a versatile scorer but I don't object to Durozo's point: Houston excelled in only one of the major statistical categories (PPG) and was below average in the rest. He's a guy who we've glorified but most NBA fans forgotten about by now.

Wow hate to say it, but I actually agree with you Bonn!

Starks made All Defensive Team (2nd team) in '92-'93. Don't think Houston's made any all nba teams, just a terrific jumpshooter and scorer, nothing else.

I remember John Starks getting repeatedly torched by Reggie Miller, Michael Jordan, Steve Smith, Glen Rice , Penny Hardaway and every other shooting guard of SF over 6'4, Starks was undersized at the SG position even though he was listed at 6'5 he was actually 6'3 so lets not act like he was Bruce Bowen, he played hard and I loved him but Houston had size and a beautiful all around offensive game and I would rather have him on my team if I was trying to win a championship.

I know you guys love Houston, but he was a way worse defender than Starks. Starks played against a ton of great shooting guards, something Houston's era lacked. Going against Jordan, Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, Hersey Hawkins, Glenn Rice, Jeff Hornacek, etc is no easy task. True Starks was undersized, but he played great man to man, as well as, team defense evident by his '93 All Defensive team. Houston would be a liability in today's NBA, sorta like a Novak, can't use him extensively because his guy would always torch him. Tell me who didn't get torched by Miller or Jordan in their primes LOL. Another thing Starks teams won way way more than Houston's teams ever did, so I'd take him getting torched individually for more overall team success.

When your playing with hard nose defensive players like Oak, Ewing, mase, kt, X danial..Your guards can be avg defenders, not to mention having a defensive minded coach.

I just finish watching some video on sprewell (who will always be my favorite knick) and I think it's really a toss between him and allan..sprees 48 point game against his home team the bucks, was so impressive.. but the what seperates starks and spree from allan..Those 2 guys were as streaky as hell..The 48 point game spree had, well he was 1-9 at the half with 6 points..

I would definitely give Spree the edge over Houston, not because of his scoring ability, but because his defense and all around game.

also, Alan only averaged like 1 or 2points than Spree. I think Alan averaged 19 and Spree 17. Add the fact that Spree had the better all around game, I have to go with Spree.

Also, I think if Spree had been allowed to play 2guard, he likely would have scored more point per game since, he'd likely be guarded by 2guards instead of opposing small forwards.

For this team, Houston by a country mile.

I changed my mind.

I think Spree for this team because of his defense, hatred for Dolan and maybe the one dude on the team that would object to Melo's nervous habit of smiling when he makes a bad play.