Knicks · I'm not a long term buyer of RJ's high level potential/talent (page 14)
martin wrote:Vmart wrote:Why does no one acknowledge synergy, Bullock, Payton and Frank may not be performing well especially Bullock but he fit well with the Knicks. those players may not be performing well but they were part of the 4 th seeded Knicks.Because it's disingenuous to the larger picture of things and kinda obvious to the point of irrelevance?
And if you are being honest, Frank was not a part of it really, so I don't know why one would include his name on the list.
And pretty much everyone and their grandma who doesn't even watch the Knicks KNEW the Knicks were going to 100% move on from Elf, so who cares about him.
And the rest of grandma's friends knew the Knicks were severely limited with Bullock as a starter as seen by the Atlanta series and had FA choices to make and that Bullock would be an unfortunate candidate.
The question remains why you aren't moving on from a moot point?
I agree about Frank as he didn't play much, but EP either penetrated or stayed outside which allowed room. Problem was he bricked most of the kickouts to him.
Last season I believe Bullock was the ideal fit that helped allow Randle to dominate the ball... it also allowed RJ to develop more as the 2nd option. Not needing to dribble and spreading the court is huge for the way our offense is orchestrated. It's not about Bullock being exceptionally good or not - it's that he was always a threat by camping behind the 3pt line. Opposing teams couldn't exert double team pressure with Bullock behind the line. Kind of like how Novak would camp and that allowed Melo his ISO room to be so effective that year. Coincidence or not - when we moved on from Novak Melo didn't seem as efficient. So while players like Novak and Bullock are one dimensional- they fit the system built around Randle.
Chicken or the egg - Randle not playing well makes the other 4 struggle or the other 4 struggling negatively impact Randle's play? Well everyone's struggling so while I don't believe having Bullock fixes everything - I do strongly believe it would be helping Randle (and RJ to an extent) offensively and defensively. Sad truth is we could have signer Fournier and still resigned Bullock - not sure why we passed?
Philc1 wrote:Uptown wrote:Vmart wrote:Uptown wrote:Vmart wrote:martin wrote:Vmart wrote:There is nothing wrong with RJ. It’s the Knicks they suck and they can’t keep a team together to save their lives. They always shoot themselves in the foot by adding players that thwart player development. All they had to do was keep the team together from last year and grow as a unit. They wonder why players regress in their developmental process.LOL for the most part they did
They added two players who had nothing to do with their 4th seed. On top of it they gave them the starting job. They lost Payton, Bullock and Frank. They were essentially your better defensive players. Not to mention regardless of what people think Payton and Randle work well together. You added a player in Kemba who is one of the worst defensive players. Fournier is an okay player but I wouldn’t say he is great defensively. You basically changed 40% of your starting lineup and they are essentially the same. Even one piece change can lead to a team falling apart.
elf and Frank played a grand total of 16 mins in the playoffs. During the regular season, we were under .500 until we traded for Rose. When we got hot down the stretch of the season, elf was barely getting 20 mins per, wasn't playing in the 4th Q. And Frank was collecting multiple DNPs sitting next to Knox. The team that lost to the Hawks looked more like an 8th seed than a 4th seed.
Speaking of the players you want to grow with:
Bullock is averaging 5 pts per and shooting 27% from 3.
elf is sitting at the end of the bench playing spin the bottle with the towel boy each night.
And Frank is back to playing every 5th game in Dallas.In sum, we let a third string pg, a situational bench player and a streaky shooting 8th or 9th man walk this summer...Wasn't much growing to be done with that group.
Why does no one acknowledge synergy, Bullock, Payton and Frank may not be performing well especially Bullock but he fit well with the Knicks. those players may not be performing well but they were part of the 4 th seeded Knicks.
Probably the same reason you are not acknowledging that last year was an abnormal year. No fans, multiple teams dealing with covid issue where players were in out of the line up, (We didn't have any major covid issues), Toronto got displaced, Teams in the bubble that advanced didn't get their normal off season rest, etc....It was a weird year for most. Randle had a career year (during the regular season but looked like his normal 2019 self in the playoffs).
Also, some of the teams that finished behind us in the standings last year, have improved and or got healthier. The Bulls, Heat, Cavs, Hornets, Wizards, etc.
So is elf's 20 mins per and Bullocks absent the reason why Randle and RJ has regressed? Reggie not shooting well because he's not playing alongside Randle? Randle not playing D like he did last year because he needs Frank to motivate him?
Randle is acting like 90% of players once they get their big contract. They usually regress a little at least their first season
I am worried about RJ. He doesn’t look happy. I can see the Knicks doing something really stupid like trading him in about a year from now and watch him become all world somewhere else
I have the same concern about Knicks trading RJ (eg Portland in Lillard deal) as I believe Thibs loyalty ties to Randle.
Until I see Thibs bench Randle when he stands around or doesn't move the ball (like he does with most of the others) I will believe this.
I think RJ is unhappy as the offseason additions have changed things for him (but not Randle) - hope it gets figured out!
jskinny35 wrote:martin wrote:Vmart wrote:Why does no one acknowledge synergy, Bullock, Payton and Frank may not be performing well especially Bullock but he fit well with the Knicks. those players may not be performing well but they were part of the 4 th seeded Knicks.Because it's disingenuous to the larger picture of things and kinda obvious to the point of irrelevance?
And if you are being honest, Frank was not a part of it really, so I don't know why one would include his name on the list.
And pretty much everyone and their grandma who doesn't even watch the Knicks KNEW the Knicks were going to 100% move on from Elf, so who cares about him.
And the rest of grandma's friends knew the Knicks were severely limited with Bullock as a starter as seen by the Atlanta series and had FA choices to make and that Bullock would be an unfortunate candidate.
The question remains why you aren't moving on from a moot point?
I agree about Frank as he didn't play much, but EP either penetrated or stayed outside which allowed room. Problem was he bricked most of the kickouts to him.
I feel like when you can't hit a 3point to save your life, you are really not creating the room you think it created and allowed?
jskinny35 wrote: Last season I believe Bullock was the ideal fit that helped allow Randle to dominate the ball... it also allowed RJ to develop more as the 2nd option. Not needing to dribble and spreading the court is huge for the way our offense is orchestrated. It's not about Bullock being exceptionally good or not - it's that he was always a threat by camping behind the 3pt line. Opposing teams couldn't exert double team pressure with Bullock behind the line. Kind of like how Novak would camp and that allowed Melo his ISO room to be so effective that year. Coincidence or not - when we moved on from Novak Melo didn't seem as efficient. So while players like Novak and Bullock are one dimensional- they fit the system built around Randle.Chicken or the egg - Randle not playing well makes the other 4 struggle or the other 4 struggling negatively impact Randle's play? Well everyone's struggling so while I don't believe having Bullock fixes everything - I do strongly believe it would be helping Randle (and RJ to an extent) offensively and defensively.
When you have a guy that doesn't really want to or can't dribble and then upgrade him with a guy who has shot the same 3pt% (give or take) for their careers WHILE being able to also dribble penetrate, you go for it. I don't understand how Fournier's added ability to dribble the ball should directly effect RJ or Randle in a negative way. Sure they have not meshed this year but it shouldn't be a reason to want Bullock type non dribbler back.
jskinny35 wrote:Sad truth is we could have signer Fournier and still resigned Bullock - not sure why we passed?
The Knicks chose Burks over Bullock. And they had RJ, IQ, and drafted Grimes, so all the more reason to pass on Bullock.
he is not a dynamic player -- he will never be confused with Ja Morant
On the other hand, i think he's tough and tough minded and can imagine him turning into his own version of a Jimmy Butler-type. (Not saying he will match Jimmy but he'll be more like that than Trae or Doncic or Ja or Donovan). Seems to also have a good attitude and is very smart
Reggie was not good creating, playmaking, or going to the hoop with the ball. Should we have started Reggie, then bring RJ off the bench in anticipation of knowing that about game 15 RJ would slump?
This would have been determined in free agency before the season.
We slid RJ over to SF. His defense is really quite good. His three was hot, then it slumpted. Did Reggie ever slump? When we started 9-13 last year, was Reggie on fire?
Can we break down Reggies shooting in increments besides full season and compare it to RJ and see if that is the issue?
1992-93 Dallas Mavericks, with a defensive rating of 114.7 went 11-71
So what I am saying is without RJ our D is beyond bad. It's record level bad
Chandler wrote:RJ is in a ruthe is not a dynamic player -- he will never be confused with Ja Morant
On the other hand, i think he's tough and tough minded and can imagine him turning into his own version of a Jimmy Butler-type. (Not saying he will match Jimmy but he'll be more like that than Trae or Doncic or Ja or Donovan). Seems to also have a good attitude and is very smart
RJ is tasked with guarding the best wing night in and night out. He also isn't as physically talented as most of these players. Knicks should of targeted a SF and kept RJ at the 2. Fournier is just an awkward fit with RJ
Chandler wrote:RJ is in a ruthe is not a dynamic player -- he will never be confused with Ja Morant
On the other hand, i think he's tough and tough minded and can imagine him turning into his own version of a Jimmy Butler-type. (Not saying he will match Jimmy but he'll be more like that than Trae or Doncic or Ja or Donovan). Seems to also have a good attitude and is very smart
I think RJ is the kind of player that will make the best play available. That could mean pass. That could me drive. It sometimes means shoot. Randle and Fournier are shoot first players. That’s a condemnation of Randle because he wants the be the middle of a heliocentric offense. The #2 is clearly Fournier, but between them, they don’t pass much more unless they get stopped. At which point Ball movement is a figment of a collapsed offense and not a healthy rotation to find weaknesses in the defense.
All I want to change about Randle is to make him pass more and shoot from efficient locations. He and Barrett should have a killer pick and pop that is essentially unguardable.
They gotta trust the kid Barrett to grow with the ball.
OUr season was suppose to be grand by deleting Elf?
The left Thibs behind AGAIN?
Could be Thibs is not happy that we did not want reggie and we got Elf, and we got happy with “coming home” sequel but with B list Kemba in steep decline. Does this mean Thibs gets canned? That its not fixable? That Thibs is showing up his FO like an immature human? Is Randle now bathing in Redwine and caviar living the life of a gazillionaire? RJ is suddenly Lazy?
Mitch is never to get his hops back?
I understand we would have liked more from a 3rd overall pick but it is what it is. We got the 3rd guy in a 2 player draft. Thankfully RJ is not a bust.
He's also not untradeable but I'm not giving him away unless we get a PG in return who is under 28.
SergioNYK wrote:I still like RJ - he has a lot of winning traits. I still ultimately see him as our 'Andre Iguodala'. A two-way player who won't put the monster stats but he will make the team better overall and make the winning plays and check the opposing teams best perimeter player.I understand we would have liked more from a 3rd overall pick but it is what it is. We got the 3rd guy in a 2 player draft. Thankfully RJ is not a bust.
He's also not untradeable but I'm not giving him away unless we get a PG in return who is under 28.
I like that
Nalod wrote:RJ called, career night, 32pts. Says “phuck Y’all!” And wished all a good night.
Lol, +1
martin wrote:SergioNYK wrote:I still like RJ - he has a lot of winning traits. I still ultimately see him as our 'Andre Iguodala'. A two-way player who won't put the monster stats but he will make the team better overall and make the winning plays and check the opposing teams best perimeter player.I understand we would have liked more from a 3rd overall pick but it is what it is. We got the 3rd guy in a 2 player draft. Thankfully RJ is not a bust.
He's also not untradeable but I'm not giving him away unless we get a PG in return who is under 28.
I like that
Yes I think that’s a fair comparison going forward.
EwingsGlass wrote:Chandler wrote:RJ is in a ruthe is not a dynamic player -- he will never be confused with Ja Morant
On the other hand, i think he's tough and tough minded and can imagine him turning into his own version of a Jimmy Butler-type. (Not saying he will match Jimmy but he'll be more like that than Trae or Doncic or Ja or Donovan). Seems to also have a good attitude and is very smart
I think RJ is the kind of player that will make the best play available. That could mean pass. That could me drive. It sometimes means shoot. Randle and Fournier are shoot first players. That’s a condemnation of Randle because he wants the be the middle of a heliocentric offense. The #2 is clearly Fournier, but between them, they don’t pass much more unless they get stopped. At which point Ball movement is a figment of a collapsed offense and not a healthy rotation to find weaknesses in the defense.
All I want to change about Randle is to make him pass more and shoot from efficient locations. He and Barrett should have a killer pick and pop that is essentially unguardable.
They gotta trust the kid Barrett to grow with the ball.
i agree with a lot of this but am hoping that EF and Julius create that two man game which should be superior to what Julius had with Bullock because Fournier is a better passers and more versatile scorer and shooter.
martin wrote:Iggy is looking like one of the better comps for RJ I have seen in a long time. Hopefully he ends up being a better shooter than Iggy, although Iggy is def the better finisher... that dude always got to the rim and was a great finisher and also had an excellent drive an dish game.SergioNYK wrote:I still like RJ - he has a lot of winning traits. I still ultimately see him as our 'Andre Iguodala'. A two-way player who won't put the monster stats but he will make the team better overall and make the winning plays and check the opposing teams best perimeter player.I understand we would have liked more from a 3rd overall pick but it is what it is. We got the 3rd guy in a 2 player draft. Thankfully RJ is not a bust.
He's also not untradeable but I'm not giving him away unless we get a PG in return who is under 28.
I like that
I agree about the "winning traits"
A game after Thibs suggesting maybe RJ do some more shooting the kid lights it up and acts like he's been there before. I loved it.
TheGame wrote:RJ and Randle are the issues. When Randle passes the ball and RJ hits his threes at better than 35%, the Knicks win. When those two things don’t happen, the Knicks usually struggle. If RJ starts hitting his 3s, he becomes a top-10 SF. When he is missing them, he almost becomes unplayable because our whole offense is Randle drawing double teams and him kicking it to the open man. For that offense to work, we need players shooting at least 35% from 3, which RJ was not doing for the past 13 games.
There's more to it than just RJ missing shots, as a team we need more of our wings to catch and shoot.
We still play too much ISO ball and pass out of necessity as oppose to making the extra pass for a player with a better look.
fishmike wrote:martin wrote:Iggy is looking like one of the better comps for RJ I have seen in a long time. Hopefully he ends up being a better shooter than Iggy, although Iggy is def the better finisher... that dude always got to the rim and was a great finisher and also had an excellent drive an dish game.SergioNYK wrote:I still like RJ - he has a lot of winning traits. I still ultimately see him as our 'Andre Iguodala'. A two-way player who won't put the monster stats but he will make the team better overall and make the winning plays and check the opposing teams best perimeter player.I understand we would have liked more from a 3rd overall pick but it is what it is. We got the 3rd guy in a 2 player draft. Thankfully RJ is not a bust.
He's also not untradeable but I'm not giving him away unless we get a PG in return who is under 28.
I like that
I agree about the "winning traits"
A game after Thibs suggesting maybe RJ do some more shooting the kid lights it up and acts like he's been there before. I loved it.
21 year old Iggy vs peak Iggy?
Haters: “It got to RJ’s he got to get back in gym!”
Full Thibs quote: “He been sick, he needs to get in the gym and work it thru”.
Nalod wrote:fishmike wrote:martin wrote:Iggy is looking like one of the better comps for RJ I have seen in a long time. Hopefully he ends up being a better shooter than Iggy, although Iggy is def the better finisher... that dude always got to the rim and was a great finisher and also had an excellent drive an dish game.SergioNYK wrote:I still like RJ - he has a lot of winning traits. I still ultimately see him as our 'Andre Iguodala'. A two-way player who won't put the monster stats but he will make the team better overall and make the winning plays and check the opposing teams best perimeter player.I understand we would have liked more from a 3rd overall pick but it is what it is. We got the 3rd guy in a 2 player draft. Thankfully RJ is not a bust.
He's also not untradeable but I'm not giving him away unless we get a PG in return who is under 28.
I like that
I agree about the "winning traits"
A game after Thibs suggesting maybe RJ do some more shooting the kid lights it up and acts like he's been there before. I loved it.
21 year old Iggy vs peak Iggy?Haters: “It got to RJ’s he got to get back in gym!”
Full Thibs quote: “He been sick, he needs to get in the gym and work it thru”.
Young and peak Iggy were an A+ athletes. GSW Iggy was still arguably at the same tier in terms of explosiveness as RJ now. Plus he has been a better passer and defender than RJ for the majority of his career. I don't really see the comparison. I can see the RJ reaching, maybe even surpassing Iggy's overall impact one day tho.