We all thought that Phil was crazy for not picking up Larkin's option and it was a great move.
Got to give credit where it is due.
Larkin is at best a third stringer and is not worth more the min.
As a under 6ft guard.....you need something thats extra ordinary. ....and he doesnt have it or doesnt know how to use it.....that means he becomes a liability on defense. I agree....good decision. But it couldve been a bad decision as well....we as fans have to give him the benefit of doubt because every decision will not be the best over his 5 yr contract.....if we praise his pros....we have to brush off his cons with the same passion.....no rookie GM will be flawless. ....No pro GM will be flawless.
I just don't think Larkin will fit here. Fantastic good passer/rebounder of the ball.
TPercy wrote:I just don't think Larkin will fit here. Fantastic passer/rebounder of the ball.
he can't get his damn shot off.
he is a good rebounder and has heart but he is even more timid on offense than pablo.
mreinman wrote:TPercy wrote:I just don't think Larkin will fit here. Fantastic passer/rebounder of the ball.
he can't get his damn shot off.
he is a good rebounder and has heart but he is even more timid on offense than pablo.
Yeah, he has time on his side though, turning 22. Unfortunately, we wont have this kind of leisure to develop him if we want to do well next year.
mreinman wrote:We all thought that Phil was crazy for not picking up Larkin's option and it was a great move.Got to give credit where it is due.
Larkin is at best a third stringer and is not worth more the min.
Why is this great?
A. He traded for Caldreon and Larkin at the same time
B. He didnt bring in another PG after Shveyd got hurt. Larkin is a 3rd PG not a 40 min guy. I really thought he shouldve given Nate Wolters a shot
If the plans are to start Jose Calderon--were going to lose 50 games+++ no matter what.
I think Larkin would do better on a different team. We need big guards who can defend and also be more effective going to the hole or even posting up. I just don't think he's the right guy for this team. I do think he has an NBA career on a different team. A team that plays 4 out and runs a ton of PnR in a spread offense would fit him better.
mreinman wrote:TPercy wrote:I just don't think Larkin will fit here. Fantastic passer/rebounder of the ball.
he can't get his damn shot off.
he is a good rebounder and has heart but he is even more timid on offense than pablo.
Do you suppose its because he is basically a rookie?
I like him and I was hoping he would make a home with the Knicks but his style of play doesn't fit with what the Knicks are trying to do.
BRIGGS wrote:mreinman wrote:We all thought that Phil was crazy for not picking up Larkin's option and it was a great move.Got to give credit where it is due.
Larkin is at best a third stringer and is not worth more the min.
Why is this great?
A. He traded for Caldreon and Larkin at the same time
B. He didnt bring in another PG after Shveyd got hurt. Larkin is a 3rd PG not a 40 min guy. I really thought he shouldve given Nate Wolters a shot
If the plans are to start Jose Calderon--were going to lose 50 games+++ no matter what.
I am talking about the larkin move specifically.
Swishfm3 wrote:mreinman wrote:TPercy wrote:I just don't think Larkin will fit here. Fantastic passer/rebounder of the ball.
he can't get his damn shot off.
he is a good rebounder and has heart but he is even more timid on offense than pablo.
Do you suppose its because he is basically a rookie?
I like him and I was hoping he would make a home with the Knicks but his style of play doesn't fit with what the Knicks are trying to do.
maybe he can be better off the ball but his signs are not good.
mreinman wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:mreinman wrote:TPercy wrote:I just don't think Larkin will fit here. Fantastic passer/rebounder of the ball.
he can't get his damn shot off.
he is a good rebounder and has heart but he is even more timid on offense than pablo.
Do you suppose its because he is basically a rookie?
I like him and I was hoping he would make a home with the Knicks but his style of play doesn't fit with what the Knicks are trying to do.
maybe he can be better off the ball but his signs are not good.
Larkin would be best in a spread offense, 4 out PnR with no bigs in the paint. He could use his speed more without the presence of so many big bodies as you have in the Triangle, which is designed to have your bigs in the paint.
This system is not designed for PG to thrive. Even Guys like CP3 would look marginal
Knicks1969 wrote:This system is not designed for PG to thrive. Even Guys like CP3 would look marginal
I wouldn't say that. Technically there is no PG as in the typical system. You basically have 2 scoring guards and thus any guard with talent should be able to excel. If they can drive, shoot and pass they'll do well. This is why Schved did so well. He was able to take advantage of the opportunities this system gives to any guard or wing to create off the motion and ball movement.
The difference is that in this system you don't want a ball dominant guard who can only really function if he has the ball all the time. Combo guards are actually best in this system. The system is designed to allow everyone to touch the ball and so bigs are not ignored in the Triangle. Bigs are involved on every play. That also means that the bigs are in the way of a small guard like Larkin. He won't have a clean paint area as often as in other systems. There's less PnR so that further reduces the looks that Larkin would normally get.
nixluva wrote:Knicks1969 wrote:This system is not designed for PG to thrive. Even Guys like CP3 would look marginal
I wouldn't say that. Technically there is no PG as in the typical system. You basically have 2 scoring guards and thus any guard with talent should be able to excel. If they can drive, shoot and pass they'll do well. This is why Schved did so well. He was able to take advantage of the opportunities this system gives to any guard or wing to create off the motion and ball movement.
The difference is that in this system you don't want a ball dominant guard who can only really function if he has the ball all the time. Combo guards are actually best in this system. The system is designed to allow everyone to touch the ball and so bigs are not ignored in the Triangle. Bigs are involved on every play. That also means that the bigs are in the way of a small guard like Larkin. He won't have a clean paint area as often as in other systems. There's less PnR so that further reduces the looks that Larkin would normally get.
I don't know of a 5'11" guard who did well in the triangle; do u?
He has been playing well with the exception of last night. However he is not part of the future plan. Just as is evident by Phil not picking up his option. Hopefully the knicks can do better Han calderon & Larkin. Hopefully Svhed is the guy
One reason it would be great to draft a point guard is that we would hopefully not have put up with the PG of the month club anymore. Would like that to come to a merciful end.
It's really hard to judge anyone on this roster because they all have roles they shouldn't be in.
his upside is an ultra watered down version of Mike Conley Jr
he stinks
With time you will all think differently of Larkin. In college he was a hell of a shooter. this was his rookie season; please keep that in mind
Knicks1969 wrote:With time you will all think differently of Larkin. In college he was a hell of a shooter. this was his rookie season; please keep that in mind
he played in 50 games last year and stunk then also. He's not an NBA player
