Knicks · Does this strategy make any sense? (page 1)

I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

Sambakick wrote:I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

The hilarious thing is we want to protect the paint but signed a bunch of forwards that provide zero rim protection. The hilarious thing is we do have the potiental to defend the 3 point line so the strategy is extra bonkers.

A lineup featuring Frank, Dotson, Barrett, Morris , and Mitch can keep defend the 3 and keep guards out of the paint. We also have a great rim protector to clean up the mess.

We should of signed another rim protector instead of all those Forwards.

Jmpasq wrote:

Sambakick wrote:I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

The hilarious thing is we want to protect the paint but signed a bunch of forwards that provide zero rim protection. The hilarious thing is we do have the potiental to defend the 3 point line so the strategy is extra bonkers.

Except for the fact that the Knicks rim perfection is not too bad and paint protection is just a bit worse (but not bad), you are entirely correct

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

Sambakick wrote:I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

The hilarious thing is we want to protect the paint but signed a bunch of forwards that provide zero rim protection. The hilarious thing is we do have the potiental to defend the 3 point line so the strategy is extra bonkers.

Except for the fact that the Knicks rim perfection is not too bad and paint protection is just a bit worse (but not bad), you are entirely correct

Because of Mitchell Robinson. Randle, Portis, and Taj provide none. There is potiental of a quality lineups for the Knicks. Any lineup should include Frank and Dotson as the Guards. The team is immediatly much better defensivly. I just want a style of play defined. How do we want to play? It feels like we have a bunch of parts thrown together without any thought of cohesive basketball. We made some bad signings to maintain flexibility but there were much better ways to spend our money. This is just another lost season. Our young players move closer and closer to free agency and risk of losing them for nothing.

Jmpasq wrote:

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

Sambakick wrote:I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

The hilarious thing is we want to protect the paint but signed a bunch of forwards that provide zero rim protection. The hilarious thing is we do have the potiental to defend the 3 point line so the strategy is extra bonkers.

Except for the fact that the Knicks rim perfection is not too bad and paint protection is just a bit worse (but not bad), you are entirely correct

Because of Mitchell Robinson. Randle, Portis, and Taj provide none. There is potiental of a quality lineups for the Knicks. Any lineup should include Frank and Dotson as the Guards. The team is immediatly much better defensivly. I just want a style of play defined. How do we want to play? It feels like we have a bunch of parts thrown together without any thought of cohesive basketball. We made some bad signings to maintain flexibility but there were much better ways to spend our money. This is just another lost season. Our young players move closer and closer to free agency and risk of losing them for nothing.

We can't do better than this reasoning?

Mitch has missed 4 games and plays less than half of the games he is in because of fouls. Came off the bench for half the games he has played. Mitch is a good part of Knicks' rim protection but let's not put our heads in the sand and act like a Republican who is still spouting off about the servers being hacked by Ukrainians.

I mean come on. Knicks have tried to guard the paint at the expense of 3 point shooting. Randle, Portis and some others are just offal defensively; they are worse on the perimeter than other places, everything being equal.

Guarding the paint is easier than doing so on the perimeter, especially when the ball moves around because of double teams. Knicks are collectively not smart defenders.

BTW, Taj is a very good defender, just not the shot-blocking type

So Martin do you think Fizdale's philosophy of packing the paint and daring the three makes sense? Or are you saying that we play that way because we can't play any other way with our personnel?

We should be guarding the three pt line, and let teams attack the paint where we still have a last line of defense in Mitch and Taj. I think this philosophy of Fizdale's is glaringly dumb in the modern three-pt heavy game.

Sambakick wrote:So Martin do you think Fizdale's philosophy of packing the paint and daring the three makes sense? Or are you saying that we play that way because we can't play any other way with our personnel?

The Knicks defense is not good, mostly that’s all that I know. We all know the individually poor defenders: Randle, Portis, Knox, DSJr, probably some others. Team defense is only as good as your worst defender. Even Mitch has episodes of poor defense, witness the fouls and such.

Fiz has told us his staff has emphasized interior defense, no idea why

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

Sambakick wrote:I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

The hilarious thing is we want to protect the paint but signed a bunch of forwards that provide zero rim protection. The hilarious thing is we do have the potiental to defend the 3 point line so the strategy is extra bonkers.

Except for the fact that the Knicks rim perfection is not too bad and paint protection is just a bit worse (but not bad), you are entirely correct

Because of Mitchell Robinson. Randle, Portis, and Taj provide none. There is potiental of a quality lineups for the Knicks. Any lineup should include Frank and Dotson as the Guards. The team is immediatly much better defensivly. I just want a style of play defined. How do we want to play? It feels like we have a bunch of parts thrown together without any thought of cohesive basketball. We made some bad signings to maintain flexibility but there were much better ways to spend our money. This is just another lost season. Our young players move closer and closer to free agency and risk of losing them for nothing.

We can't do better than this reasoning?

Mitch has missed 4 games and plays less than half of the games he is in because of fouls. Came off the bench for half the games he has played. Mitch is a good part of Knicks' rim protection but let's not put our heads in the sand and act like a Republican who is still spouting off about the servers being hacked by Ukrainians.

I mean come on. Knicks have tried to guard the paint at the expense of 3 point shooting. Randle, Portis and some others are just offal defensively; they are worse on the perimeter than other places, everything being equal.

Guarding the paint is easier than doing so on the perimeter, especially when the ball moves around because of double teams. Knicks are collectively not smart defenders.

BTW, Taj is a very good defender, just not the shot-blocking type

A good part of the rim protection? Yeah I would say so. The only other frontcourt player that alters shots is Marcus Morris. Frank is probably the next best rim protector. The Knicks have a lineup that can defend the perimeter they just don't utilize it.

PG Frank
SG Dotson
SF Barrett
PF Morris
C Mitch

I have no idea what the Knicks are doing they preach defense but they trade for and sign shitty defensive players.

Jmpasq wrote:

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

Sambakick wrote:I've heard the announcers say it, and i've read interviews with players saying it, that the whole strategy is to pack the paint and make the opponent hit threes.

"That's the plan, try to protect the paint and make them spread out," 
"Our whole goal is to protect the paint."  -- Damyean Dotson 

The Knicks i saw recently were allowing the fifth-most 3-point attempts per game in the NBA.

This strategy would've worked in the 1980s 1990s and 2000s, but the modern game has offenses that WANT to shoot threes and our stragegy is to DARE them to do it? How the eff does this make any sense? Are we the dinosaurs of the NBA? Why does our coaching philosophy emphasize the paint... is it because we signed all these paint players? Can we get our heads out of the ground? Its not just about taking threes you have to be able to defend the three. How do I know this and our coach not know this? Can we have a coach that actually cares about data?

The hilarious thing is we want to protect the paint but signed a bunch of forwards that provide zero rim protection. The hilarious thing is we do have the potiental to defend the 3 point line so the strategy is extra bonkers.

Except for the fact that the Knicks rim perfection is not too bad and paint protection is just a bit worse (but not bad), you are entirely correct

Because of Mitchell Robinson. Randle, Portis, and Taj provide none. There is potiental of a quality lineups for the Knicks. Any lineup should include Frank and Dotson as the Guards. The team is immediatly much better defensivly. I just want a style of play defined. How do we want to play? It feels like we have a bunch of parts thrown together without any thought of cohesive basketball. We made some bad signings to maintain flexibility but there were much better ways to spend our money. This is just another lost season. Our young players move closer and closer to free agency and risk of losing them for nothing.

We can't do better than this reasoning?

Mitch has missed 4 games and plays less than half of the games he is in because of fouls. Came off the bench for half the games he has played. Mitch is a good part of Knicks' rim protection but let's not put our heads in the sand and act like a Republican who is still spouting off about the servers being hacked by Ukrainians.

I mean come on. Knicks have tried to guard the paint at the expense of 3 point shooting. Randle, Portis and some others are just offal defensively; they are worse on the perimeter than other places, everything being equal.

Guarding the paint is easier than doing so on the perimeter, especially when the ball moves around because of double teams. Knicks are collectively not smart defenders.

BTW, Taj is a very good defender, just not the shot-blocking type

A good part of the rim protection? Yeah I would say so. The only other frontcourt player that alters shots is Marcus Morris. Frank is probably the next best rim protector. The Knicks have a lineup that can defend the perimeter they just don't utilize it.

PG Frank
SG Dotson
SF Barrett
PF Morris
C Mitch

I have no idea what the Knicks are doing they preach defense but they trade for and sign shitty defensive players.

That lineup isn't scoring shit

Just deleted a bunch of posts that are too uninformed. Not hosting that stuff here. If you have any to follow up with this with me, contact me offline.