Obvious to begin playing time integration at the expense of near any of our wings including Fournier
BRIGGS wrote:Obvious to begin playing time integration at the expense of near any of our wings including Fournier
It's too early, but depending how things go, I'd ponder shipping out Burke, and moving Fournier to his role off the bench- in retrospect, maybe we should have kept Bullock over Burke. I'm just not sure we can ultimately have a adequate defense with a starting backcourt of Fournier and Kemba. A starting lineup of Kemba, Bullock, RJ, Randle and Noel would probably have made more sense as it would have meant one less mouth to feed on offence (possibly two as Mitch seems to want to score more than Noel).
If Kemba is injured for a stretch, I'd like to see us try a starting lineup of McBride, Fournier, RJ, Randle and Noel (again as it's one less mouth to feed on offense).
smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Obvious to begin playing time integration at the expense of near any of our wings including Fournier
It's too early, but depending how things go, I'd ponder shipping out Burke, and moving Fournier to his role off the bench- in retrospect, maybe we should have kept Bullock over Burke. I'm just not sure we can ultimately have a adequate defense with a starting backcourt of Fournier and Kemba. A starting lineup of Kemba, Bullock, RJ, Randle and Noel would probably have made more sense as it would have meant one less mouth to feed on offence (possibly two as Mitch seems to want to score more than Noel).
If Kemba is injured for a stretch, I'd like to see us try a starting lineup of McBride, Fournier, RJ, Randle and Noel (again as it's one less mouth to feed on offense).
I wanted to keep Reggie over Bullock, even before the Fournier signing. Sounds like the Knicks wanted to offered Reggie after other moves where made and Reggie decided not to wait.
That said, I'd still start Fournier over Bullock, but I'd still feel more comfortable having a solid 3&D vet on the roster.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/30/reggie-bul...The Knicks didn’t need to use cap space to re-sign Bullock as they had his early Bird rights. According to a source, Bullock would have considered the Knicks had they agreed beforehand to a package, but they asked him to wait. That was not happening.
I think differently. I think a guy like Grimes is why we opted for Burks over him. With time I think could learn to surpass Bullock and maybe offer even more. Just wish he was an inch taller but oh well.
BigDaddyG wrote:smackeddog wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Obvious to begin playing time integration at the expense of near any of our wings including Fournier
It's too early, but depending how things go, I'd ponder shipping out Burke, and moving Fournier to his role off the bench- in retrospect, maybe we should have kept Bullock over Burke. I'm just not sure we can ultimately have a adequate defense with a starting backcourt of Fournier and Kemba. A starting lineup of Kemba, Bullock, RJ, Randle and Noel would probably have made more sense as it would have meant one less mouth to feed on offence (possibly two as Mitch seems to want to score more than Noel).
If Kemba is injured for a stretch, I'd like to see us try a starting lineup of McBride, Fournier, RJ, Randle and Noel (again as it's one less mouth to feed on offense).
I wanted to keep Reggie over Bullock, even before the Fournier signing. Sounds like the Knicks wanted to offered Reggie after other moves where made and Reggie decided not to wait.
That said, I'd still start Fournier over Bullock, but I'd still feel more comfortable having a solid 3&D vet on the roster.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/30/reggie-bul...The Knicks didn’t need to use cap space to re-sign Bullock as they had his early Bird rights. According to a source, Bullock would have considered the Knicks had they agreed beforehand to a package, but they asked him to wait. That was not happening.
I'd read the third year was the sticking point- he wanted it guaranteed, the Knicks didn't. Bullock doesn't seem to have been too impressive in Dallas, so who knows if they'd be open to a Burke for Bullock trade at the deadline (not sure if I'd do that, mainly because of the third year).
TPercy wrote:I think differently. I think a guy like Grimes is why we opted for Burks over him. With time I think could learn to surpass Bullock and maybe offer even more. Just wish he was an inch taller but oh well.
I do hope Grimes can fill that role- I just think one of the issues is we have a starting lineup with too many players used to having the ball in their hands, all trying not to step on each others toes, and two of them are bad defenders. You may as well replace one with someone who doesn't need the ball in their hand, and who can defend. That way the remaining three can get more shots and more of a rhythm going.
