Knicks · Trade Randall yesterday, today, and tomorrow. (page 4)

martin wrote:

Panos wrote:Martin, I'm curious your thoughts about this. Do you not think that this team could thrive if we had someone with better vision looking to get others involved as primary ballhandler and let JB focus on scoring (which is his main focus now).

I don't think Brunson's main focus is scoring; I do think it is a strength of his. I do think he has a ton of room to grow in terms of passing.

For me, main job of the PG is to navigate the game for his team. Score when you need to, pass when you need to, manage all the time. Slow down or make sure you push the ball in transition when you need to, know who is hot, who needs a shot, know who the weakest defender or part of defense is. PG'ing is all of those things.

One of the easiest ways to get going as a player is to lean on your strengths. Brunson still figuring out how to be a starter and be a focus of a defense no less score and pass and manage, so scoring may come first.

Knicks are a young team that doesn't move and cut without ball very well. Mitch has zero clue what he is doing on offense, same with Sims. With a combo of guys figuring out where and when to move AND Brunson looking for them, I'd guess you will eventually see a better run offense (assists from Brunson and better eFG% from players). It's why the Knicks have a simple offense and why they run the standard NBA go-to PnR sets with variations on each type. Keeping things simple and pretty much the same with Brunson and IQ is also helpful for the rest of the team; not creative but you are trying to get the other guys knowing their spots and what actions and options to get to. Even GS wasn't fluid in the first years of when their main player were together, and they are much more talented.

It's wild to me that some fans suggest Thibs run a more creative offense. Why? He has young players who barely know regular NBA offenses enough and some of them aren't very smart offensively or are limited offensively. So why would you introduce a level of creativity or something like a movement offense? That doesn't make sense to me in the least.

Finding the exact type of guy you may be referring to is not easy, no less trading for one; it's one thing to say you'd trade Brunson for a PG with better vision - it's a nice thought - but not really realistic? Who is that player? I don't think Ben Simmons is, especially when you consider his lack of shooting. Is Jrue that type of passer? I don't watch him much. Prime Nash aint here and even he took many many years to figure out how to do it and a partner to pass to.

Every team would thrive with someone with better vision looking to get others involved, but really only a few teams have a super solid PG that can handle scoring, passing, and managing all at a high level.

I'll live with Brunson and watch it grow cause I think he has a ton of passing potential.

Appreciate your perspective. I guess by the time I wrote the lastest post, I convinced myself that we'd be best served by putting a good passer *next to* JB. Could be potent. No, I don't know who that would be. Just ideally speaking.

martin wrote:

Panos wrote:Martin, I'm curious your thoughts about this. Do you not think that this team could thrive if we had someone with better vision looking to get others involved as primary ballhandler and let JB focus on scoring (which is his main focus now).

I don't think Brunson's main focus is scoring; I do think it is a strength of his. I do think he has a ton of room to grow in terms of passing.

For me, main job of the PG is to navigate the game for his team. Score when you need to, pass when you need to, manage all the time. Slow down or make sure you push the ball in transition when you need to, know who is hot, who needs a shot, know who the weakest defender or part of defense is. PG'ing is all of those things.

One of the easiest ways to get going as a player is to lean on your strengths. Brunson still figuring out how to be a starter and be a focus of a defense no less score and pass and manage, so scoring may come first.

Knicks are a young team that doesn't move and cut without ball very well. Mitch has zero clue what he is doing on offense, same with Sims. With a combo of guys figuring out where and when to move AND Brunson looking for them, I'd guess you will eventually see a better run offense (assists from Brunson and better eFG% from players). It's why the Knicks have a simple offense and why they run the standard NBA go-to PnR sets with variations on each type. Keeping things simple and pretty much the same with Brunson and IQ is also helpful for the rest of the team; not creative but you are trying to get the other guys knowing their spots and what actions and options to get to. Even GS wasn't fluid in the first years of when their main player were together, and they are much more talented.

It's wild to me that some fans suggest Thibs run a more creative offense. Why? He has young players who barely know regular NBA offenses enough and some of them aren't very smart offensively or are limited offensively. So why would you introduce a level of creativity or something like a movement offense? That doesn't make sense to me in the least.

Finding the exact type of guy you may be referring to is not easy, no less trading for one; it's one thing to say you'd trade Brunson for a PG with better vision - it's a nice thought - but not really realistic? Who is that player? I don't think Ben Simmons is, especially when you consider his lack of shooting. Is Jrue that type of passer? I don't watch him much. Prime Nash aint here and even he took many many years to figure out how to do it and a partner to pass to.

Every team would thrive with someone with better vision looking to get others involved, but really only a few teams have a super solid PG that can handle scoring, passing, and managing all at a high level.

I'll live with Brunson and watch it grow cause I think he has a ton of passing potential.

Intriguing perspective. Not sure I disagree but seems like you are letting the offense off easy.

I am definitely part of the group that thinks the offense needs a bit of spice. For starters, ball movement. “Feels” like the starting 5 doesn’t pass much. I don’t think I’ve seen a swing pass in the first unit. A play call for Grimes (off ball screen) and one for Robinson (a low screen alley). Instead both are chasing leftovers after the defense is set.

Our screen assists are dramatically low, meaning that the PNR doesn’t result in scoring only switches. It’s not a PNR offense. It’s iso-ball with a called switch. I’d actually welcome a PnR/PickNPop. The passing doesn’t exist though.

We can be better.

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Panos wrote:Martin, I'm curious your thoughts about this. Do you not think that this team could thrive if we had someone with better vision looking to get others involved as primary ballhandler and let JB focus on scoring (which is his main focus now).

I don't think Brunson's main focus is scoring; I do think it is a strength of his. I do think he has a ton of room to grow in terms of passing.

For me, main job of the PG is to navigate the game for his team. Score when you need to, pass when you need to, manage all the time. Slow down or make sure you push the ball in transition when you need to, know who is hot, who needs a shot, know who the weakest defender or part of defense is. PG'ing is all of those things.

One of the easiest ways to get going as a player is to lean on your strengths. Brunson still figuring out how to be a starter and be a focus of a defense no less score and pass and manage, so scoring may come first.

Knicks are a young team that doesn't move and cut without ball very well. Mitch has zero clue what he is doing on offense, same with Sims. With a combo of guys figuring out where and when to move AND Brunson looking for them, I'd guess you will eventually see a better run offense (assists from Brunson and better eFG% from players). It's why the Knicks have a simple offense and why they run the standard NBA go-to PnR sets with variations on each type. Keeping things simple and pretty much the same with Brunson and IQ is also helpful for the rest of the team; not creative but you are trying to get the other guys knowing their spots and what actions and options to get to. Even GS wasn't fluid in the first years of when their main player were together, and they are much more talented.

It's wild to me that some fans suggest Thibs run a more creative offense. Why? He has young players who barely know regular NBA offenses enough and some of them aren't very smart offensively or are limited offensively. So why would you introduce a level of creativity or something like a movement offense? That doesn't make sense to me in the least.

Finding the exact type of guy you may be referring to is not easy, no less trading for one; it's one thing to say you'd trade Brunson for a PG with better vision - it's a nice thought - but not really realistic? Who is that player? I don't think Ben Simmons is, especially when you consider his lack of shooting. Is Jrue that type of passer? I don't watch him much. Prime Nash aint here and even he took many many years to figure out how to do it and a partner to pass to.

Every team would thrive with someone with better vision looking to get others involved, but really only a few teams have a super solid PG that can handle scoring, passing, and managing all at a high level.

I'll live with Brunson and watch it grow cause I think he has a ton of passing potential.

Intriguing perspective. Not sure I disagree but seems like you are letting the offense off easy.

I am definitely part of the group that thinks the offense needs a bit of spice. For starters, ball movement. “Feels” like the starting 5 doesn’t pass much. I don’t think I’ve seen a swing pass in the first unit. A play call for Grimes (off ball screen) and one for Robinson (a low screen alley). Instead both are chasing leftovers after the defense is set.

Our screen assists are dramatically low, meaning that the PNR doesn’t result in scoring only switches. It’s not a PNR offense. It’s iso-ball with a called switch. I’d actually welcome a PnR/PickNPop. The passing doesn’t exist though.

We can be better.

They don’t pass very much. It’s why you see the team doing that very scripted, coordinated weave at the beginning of a ton of sets. It’s to get player and ball movement and hopefully some options to cut out of that or you get into your PnR set after.

Knicks starting lineup and my thoughts on their passing, cutting/player movement ability:

Brunson: good passer, ok mover and excellent in space.
Grimes: plus passer, really good mover.
RJ: Bad passer, below average mover. Holds ball
Randle: OK passer, OK mover. Really holds ball.
Mitch: bad passer, bad mover often times getting in way.

Knicks starting lineup has too many ball holders, not many good cutters, and not a good passing team.

That’s where my expectations start from. 2 out of 5 starters who are good movement players who are also passers.

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Panos wrote:Martin, I'm curious your thoughts about this. Do you not think that this team could thrive if we had someone with better vision looking to get others involved as primary ballhandler and let JB focus on scoring (which is his main focus now).

I don't think Brunson's main focus is scoring; I do think it is a strength of his. I do think he has a ton of room to grow in terms of passing.

For me, main job of the PG is to navigate the game for his team. Score when you need to, pass when you need to, manage all the time. Slow down or make sure you push the ball in transition when you need to, know who is hot, who needs a shot, know who the weakest defender or part of defense is. PG'ing is all of those things.

One of the easiest ways to get going as a player is to lean on your strengths. Brunson still figuring out how to be a starter and be a focus of a defense no less score and pass and manage, so scoring may come first.

Knicks are a young team that doesn't move and cut without ball very well. Mitch has zero clue what he is doing on offense, same with Sims. With a combo of guys figuring out where and when to move AND Brunson looking for them, I'd guess you will eventually see a better run offense (assists from Brunson and better eFG% from players). It's why the Knicks have a simple offense and why they run the standard NBA go-to PnR sets with variations on each type. Keeping things simple and pretty much the same with Brunson and IQ is also helpful for the rest of the team; not creative but you are trying to get the other guys knowing their spots and what actions and options to get to. Even GS wasn't fluid in the first years of when their main player were together, and they are much more talented.

It's wild to me that some fans suggest Thibs run a more creative offense. Why? He has young players who barely know regular NBA offenses enough and some of them aren't very smart offensively or are limited offensively. So why would you introduce a level of creativity or something like a movement offense? That doesn't make sense to me in the least.

Finding the exact type of guy you may be referring to is not easy, no less trading for one; it's one thing to say you'd trade Brunson for a PG with better vision - it's a nice thought - but not really realistic? Who is that player? I don't think Ben Simmons is, especially when you consider his lack of shooting. Is Jrue that type of passer? I don't watch him much. Prime Nash aint here and even he took many many years to figure out how to do it and a partner to pass to.

Every team would thrive with someone with better vision looking to get others involved, but really only a few teams have a super solid PG that can handle scoring, passing, and managing all at a high level.

I'll live with Brunson and watch it grow cause I think he has a ton of passing potential.

Intriguing perspective. Not sure I disagree but seems like you are letting the offense off easy.

I am definitely part of the group that thinks the offense needs a bit of spice. For starters, ball movement. “Feels” like the starting 5 doesn’t pass much. I don’t think I’ve seen a swing pass in the first unit. A play call for Grimes (off ball screen) and one for Robinson (a low screen alley). Instead both are chasing leftovers after the defense is set.

Our screen assists are dramatically low, meaning that the PNR doesn’t result in scoring only switches. It’s not a PNR offense. It’s iso-ball with a called switch. I’d actually welcome a PnR/PickNPop. The passing doesn’t exist though.

We can be better.

They don’t pass very much. It’s why you see the team doing that very scripted, coordinated weave at the beginning of a ton of sets. It’s to get player and ball movement and hopefully some options to cut out of that or you get into your PnR set after.

Knicks starting lineup and my thoughts on their passing, cutting/player movement ability:

Brunson: good passer, ok mover and excellent in space.
Grimes: plus passer, really good mover.
RJ: Bad passer, below average mover. Holds ball
Randle: OK passer, OK mover. Really holds ball.
Mitch: bad passer, bad mover often times getting in way.

Knicks starting lineup has too many ball holders, not many good cutters, and not a good passing team.

That’s where my expectations start from. 2 out of 5 starters who are good movement players who are also passers.

I’d change Randle to “unwilling passer” as the effort seems forced and of last resort.

Panos wrote:Btw, for the record, I'd trade Brunson before Randle for a PG that gets more teammates involved.

Our offence is so stagnant, who’s he going to pass to. Only the center sets a screen and is terrible at pnr. No one is cutting. Everyone is standing around ball watching waiting for someone to dribble into the double team to react.

Rookie wrote:

Panos wrote:Btw, for the record, I'd trade Brunson before Randle for a PG that gets more teammates involved.

Our offence is so stagnant, who’s he going to pass to. Only the center sets a screen and is terrible at pnr. No one is cutting. Everyone is standing around ball watching waiting for someone to dribble into the double team to react.

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Panos wrote:Martin, I'm curious your thoughts about this. Do you not think that this team could thrive if we had someone with better vision looking to get others involved as primary ballhandler and let JB focus on scoring (which is his main focus now).

I don't think Brunson's main focus is scoring; I do think it is a strength of his. I do think he has a ton of room to grow in terms of passing.

For me, main job of the PG is to navigate the game for his team. Score when you need to, pass when you need to, manage all the time. Slow down or make sure you push the ball in transition when you need to, know who is hot, who needs a shot, know who the weakest defender or part of defense is. PG'ing is all of those things.

One of the easiest ways to get going as a player is to lean on your strengths. Brunson still figuring out how to be a starter and be a focus of a defense no less score and pass and manage, so scoring may come first.

Knicks are a young team that doesn't move and cut without ball very well. Mitch has zero clue what he is doing on offense, same with Sims. With a combo of guys figuring out where and when to move AND Brunson looking for them, I'd guess you will eventually see a better run offense (assists from Brunson and better eFG% from players). It's why the Knicks have a simple offense and why they run the standard NBA go-to PnR sets with variations on each type. Keeping things simple and pretty much the same with Brunson and IQ is also helpful for the rest of the team; not creative but you are trying to get the other guys knowing their spots and what actions and options to get to. Even GS wasn't fluid in the first years of when their main player were together, and they are much more talented.

It's wild to me that some fans suggest Thibs run a more creative offense. Why? He has young players who barely know regular NBA offenses enough and some of them aren't very smart offensively or are limited offensively. So why would you introduce a level of creativity or something like a movement offense? That doesn't make sense to me in the least.

Finding the exact type of guy you may be referring to is not easy, no less trading for one; it's one thing to say you'd trade Brunson for a PG with better vision - it's a nice thought - but not really realistic? Who is that player? I don't think Ben Simmons is, especially when you consider his lack of shooting. Is Jrue that type of passer? I don't watch him much. Prime Nash aint here and even he took many many years to figure out how to do it and a partner to pass to.

Every team would thrive with someone with better vision looking to get others involved, but really only a few teams have a super solid PG that can handle scoring, passing, and managing all at a high level.

I'll live with Brunson and watch it grow cause I think he has a ton of passing potential.

Intriguing perspective. Not sure I disagree but seems like you are letting the offense off easy.

I am definitely part of the group that thinks the offense needs a bit of spice. For starters, ball movement. “Feels” like the starting 5 doesn’t pass much. I don’t think I’ve seen a swing pass in the first unit. A play call for Grimes (off ball screen) and one for Robinson (a low screen alley). Instead both are chasing leftovers after the defense is set.

Our screen assists are dramatically low, meaning that the PNR doesn’t result in scoring only switches. It’s not a PNR offense. It’s iso-ball with a called switch. I’d actually welcome a PnR/PickNPop. The passing doesn’t exist though.

We can be better.

They don’t pass very much. It’s why you see the team doing that very scripted, coordinated weave at the beginning of a ton of sets. It’s to get player and ball movement and hopefully some options to cut out of that or you get into your PnR set after.

Knicks starting lineup and my thoughts on their passing, cutting/player movement ability:

Brunson: good passer, ok mover and excellent in space.
Grimes: plus passer, really good mover.
RJ: Bad passer, below average mover. Holds ball
Randle: OK passer, OK mover. Really holds ball.
Mitch: bad passer, bad mover often times getting in way.

Knicks starting lineup has too many ball holders, not many good cutters, and not a good passing team.

That’s where my expectations start from. 2 out of 5 starters who are good movement players who are also passers.

I think both get somewhat of a bad rap for holding the ball. Randle is below 3 seconds per touch and ranked somewhere ~175 in the NBA in this stat (this includes non-starters & low minute guys but could not parse the data). This is actually not that bad for a guy who has high usage / and acts as a point forward at times. Brunson is 5.9 seconds - which is in the Top 3 after Luka and Trae. Interestingly Barrett has pretty much the same hold time per touch as Randle. Think that the rap Randle gets is most likely fan reaction to fourth quarter or late in games when the Knicks as with most NBA teams go to more ISO centric sets with their better offensive players.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/touche...

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

martin wrote:

Panos wrote:Martin, I'm curious your thoughts about this. Do you not think that this team could thrive if we had someone with better vision looking to get others involved as primary ballhandler and let JB focus on scoring (which is his main focus now).

I don't think Brunson's main focus is scoring; I do think it is a strength of his. I do think he has a ton of room to grow in terms of passing.

For me, main job of the PG is to navigate the game for his team. Score when you need to, pass when you need to, manage all the time. Slow down or make sure you push the ball in transition when you need to, know who is hot, who needs a shot, know who the weakest defender or part of defense is. PG'ing is all of those things.

One of the easiest ways to get going as a player is to lean on your strengths. Brunson still figuring out how to be a starter and be a focus of a defense no less score and pass and manage, so scoring may come first.

Knicks are a young team that doesn't move and cut without ball very well. Mitch has zero clue what he is doing on offense, same with Sims. With a combo of guys figuring out where and when to move AND Brunson looking for them, I'd guess you will eventually see a better run offense (assists from Brunson and better eFG% from players). It's why the Knicks have a simple offense and why they run the standard NBA go-to PnR sets with variations on each type. Keeping things simple and pretty much the same with Brunson and IQ is also helpful for the rest of the team; not creative but you are trying to get the other guys knowing their spots and what actions and options to get to. Even GS wasn't fluid in the first years of when their main player were together, and they are much more talented.

It's wild to me that some fans suggest Thibs run a more creative offense. Why? He has young players who barely know regular NBA offenses enough and some of them aren't very smart offensively or are limited offensively. So why would you introduce a level of creativity or something like a movement offense? That doesn't make sense to me in the least.

Finding the exact type of guy you may be referring to is not easy, no less trading for one; it's one thing to say you'd trade Brunson for a PG with better vision - it's a nice thought - but not really realistic? Who is that player? I don't think Ben Simmons is, especially when you consider his lack of shooting. Is Jrue that type of passer? I don't watch him much. Prime Nash aint here and even he took many many years to figure out how to do it and a partner to pass to.

Every team would thrive with someone with better vision looking to get others involved, but really only a few teams have a super solid PG that can handle scoring, passing, and managing all at a high level.

I'll live with Brunson and watch it grow cause I think he has a ton of passing potential.

Intriguing perspective. Not sure I disagree but seems like you are letting the offense off easy.

I am definitely part of the group that thinks the offense needs a bit of spice. For starters, ball movement. “Feels” like the starting 5 doesn’t pass much. I don’t think I’ve seen a swing pass in the first unit. A play call for Grimes (off ball screen) and one for Robinson (a low screen alley). Instead both are chasing leftovers after the defense is set.

Our screen assists are dramatically low, meaning that the PNR doesn’t result in scoring only switches. It’s not a PNR offense. It’s iso-ball with a called switch. I’d actually welcome a PnR/PickNPop. The passing doesn’t exist though.

We can be better.

They don’t pass very much. It’s why you see the team doing that very scripted, coordinated weave at the beginning of a ton of sets. It’s to get player and ball movement and hopefully some options to cut out of that or you get into your PnR set after.

Knicks starting lineup and my thoughts on their passing, cutting/player movement ability:

Brunson: good passer, ok mover and excellent in space.
Grimes: plus passer, really good mover.
RJ: Bad passer, below average mover. Holds ball
Randle: OK passer, OK mover. Really holds ball.
Mitch: bad passer, bad mover often times getting in way.

Knicks starting lineup has too many ball holders, not many good cutters, and not a good passing team.

That’s where my expectations start from. 2 out of 5 starters who are good movement players who are also passers.

I think both get somewhat of a bad rap for holding the ball. Randle is below 3 seconds per touch and ranked somewhere ~175 in the NBA in this stat (this includes non-starters & low minute guys but could not parse the data). This is actually not that bad for a guy who has high usage / and acts as a point forward at times. Brunson is 5.9 seconds - which is in the Top 3 after Luka and Trae. Interestingly Barrett has pretty much the same hold time per touch as Randle. Think that the rap Randle gets is most likely fan reaction to fourth quarter or late in games when the Knicks as with most NBA teams go to more ISO centric sets with their better offensive players.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/touche...

Great post.
Would also add that when our coaching staff broke down our efficiency numbers they accounted for position. It included dribbles and hold time.
PF's and C's, who post up, would have a higher hold time per possession than say a SG who we wanted to come off picks and shoot.
PG's obviously also have a higher hold time.

NYKMentality wrote:If Julius Randle were to get "traded"?

It'll have to be for nothing short of a Kevin Durant, Greek Freak and/or Nikola Jokić type of SUPERSTAR.

And why?

Because that's the type of SUPERSTAR level Julius Randle is currently playing @.

In all seriousness. Julius Randle is climbing up the All-Time NEW YORK KNICKS All-Time record books; and certain types of fans don't even REALIZE it (just yet).

While Jules is climbing the record book, EF broke the record book and look what that got him. I guess the fans aren’t the only ones to realize it. Don’t forget the coaching staff who saw EF break starks record, and he still got the pine.

My point is individual stats are nothing if it doesn’t lead to winning especially in crunch time. And he has low IQ on defense, along with RJ. Mixed in with slow lateral movements and reaction / recovery speed. Building a team around two guys who are inefficient scorers and lacks defense. That’s a terrible foundation to build on. Add in a rigid coach that gives these inefficient players too much creativity.

Players that are inefficient on offense needs more offensive structure not less. Same with defense. If our big 3 stink in man to man defense, and we see the power of the zone (since we struggle to score against it) why not play more zone to hide our defensive man to man weakness.

blkexec wrote:

NYKMentality wrote:If Julius Randle were to get "traded"?

It'll have to be for nothing short of a Kevin Durant, Greek Freak and/or Nikola Jokić type of SUPERSTAR.

And why?

Because that's the type of SUPERSTAR level Julius Randle is currently playing @.

In all seriousness. Julius Randle is climbing up the All-Time NEW YORK KNICKS All-Time record books; and certain types of fans don't even REALIZE it (just yet).

While Jules is climbing the record book, EF broke the record book and look what that got him. I guess the fans aren’t the only ones to realize it. Don’t forget the coaching staff who saw EF break starks record, and he still got the pine.

My point is individual stats are nothing if it doesn’t lead to winning especially in crunch time. And he has low IQ on defense, along with RJ. Mixed in with slow lateral movements and reaction / recovery speed. Building a team around two guys who are inefficient scorers and lacks defense. That’s a terrible foundation to build on. Add in a rigid coach that gives these inefficient players too much creativity.

Players that are inefficient on offense needs more offensive structure not less. Same with defense. If our big 3 stink in man to man defense, and we see the power of the zone (since we struggle to score against it) why not play more zone to hide our defensive man to man weakness.

The problem with Randle is his ceiling is limited and his style of play and corresponding talent level then causes whatever team he is on to have a limited ceiling. He’s essentially a more physically fit Zach Randolph. An automatic double double guy who can bully his way in the paint with strength and a lower center of gravity then other NBA PFs and Cs while he can also shoot competently from outside or beyond 3 point. The problem is he’s a very ball dominant player who needs the ball in his hands and specific ISO plays on offense and often if he goes cold he will try to shoot his way out of a slump.

Randle is a good player. He’s not a loser like Stephon Marbury or some other stat guys whose teams never make or made the playoffs. You can win with Randle but the ceiling is 4-7th seed and a first round exit

The strategy going forward should be trade Randle for picks in the offseason and either start Obi at PF or go with a smaller lineup with RJ at the 4.

Philc1 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

NYKMentality wrote:If Julius Randle were to get "traded"?

It'll have to be for nothing short of a Kevin Durant, Greek Freak and/or Nikola Jokić type of SUPERSTAR.

And why?

Because that's the type of SUPERSTAR level Julius Randle is currently playing @.

In all seriousness. Julius Randle is climbing up the All-Time NEW YORK KNICKS All-Time record books; and certain types of fans don't even REALIZE it (just yet).

While Jules is climbing the record book, EF broke the record book and look what that got him. I guess the fans aren’t the only ones to realize it. Don’t forget the coaching staff who saw EF break starks record, and he still got the pine.

My point is individual stats are nothing if it doesn’t lead to winning especially in crunch time. And he has low IQ on defense, along with RJ. Mixed in with slow lateral movements and reaction / recovery speed. Building a team around two guys who are inefficient scorers and lacks defense. That’s a terrible foundation to build on. Add in a rigid coach that gives these inefficient players too much creativity.

Players that are inefficient on offense needs more offensive structure not less. Same with defense. If our big 3 stink in man to man defense, and we see the power of the zone (since we struggle to score against it) why not play more zone to hide our defensive man to man weakness.

The problem with Randle is his ceiling is limited and his style of play and corresponding talent level then causes whatever team he is on to have a limited ceiling. He’s essentially a more physically fit Zach Randolph. An automatic double double guy who can bully his way in the paint with strength and a lower center of gravity then other NBA PFs and Cs while he can also shoot competently from outside or beyond 3 point. The problem is he’s a very ball dominant player who needs the ball in his hands and specific ISO plays on offense and often if he goes cold he will try to shoot his way out of a slump.

Randle is a good player. He’s not a loser like Stephon Marbury or some other stat guys whose teams never make or made the playoffs. You can win with Randle but the ceiling is 4-7th seed and a first round exit

The strategy going forward should be trade Randle for picks in the offseason and either start Obi at PF or go with a smaller lineup with RJ at the 4.

Agree with you about the type of player Randle is. But you mentioned aspects every team needs. Problem is we need a better ONE option. As we see with JB, Randle is willing to hand that responsibility off. Problem is that JB, as good as he is, is not a true number one..
Also, we do not have knock down shooters around Julius. He kicked it out often to Grimes and IQ, RJ and the results were not real good. Do agree that he has to improve his efficiency and bball IQ.
Disagree that guys like Obi, Deuce, Sims, Hart are the guys we should judge this teams potential ceiling with a base of JB, RJ,JR, Grimes and IQ. Especially if we add a couple of solid shooters and a true number ONE.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

NYKMentality wrote:If Julius Randle were to get "traded"?

It'll have to be for nothing short of a Kevin Durant, Greek Freak and/or Nikola Jokić type of SUPERSTAR.

And why?

Because that's the type of SUPERSTAR level Julius Randle is currently playing @.

In all seriousness. Julius Randle is climbing up the All-Time NEW YORK KNICKS All-Time record books; and certain types of fans don't even REALIZE it (just yet).

While Jules is climbing the record book, EF broke the record book and look what that got him. I guess the fans aren’t the only ones to realize it. Don’t forget the coaching staff who saw EF break starks record, and he still got the pine.

My point is individual stats are nothing if it doesn’t lead to winning especially in crunch time. And he has low IQ on defense, along with RJ. Mixed in with slow lateral movements and reaction / recovery speed. Building a team around two guys who are inefficient scorers and lacks defense. That’s a terrible foundation to build on. Add in a rigid coach that gives these inefficient players too much creativity.

Players that are inefficient on offense needs more offensive structure not less. Same with defense. If our big 3 stink in man to man defense, and we see the power of the zone (since we struggle to score against it) why not play more zone to hide our defensive man to man weakness.

The problem with Randle is his ceiling is limited and his style of play and corresponding talent level then causes whatever team he is on to have a limited ceiling. He’s essentially a more physically fit Zach Randolph. An automatic double double guy who can bully his way in the paint with strength and a lower center of gravity then other NBA PFs and Cs while he can also shoot competently from outside or beyond 3 point. The problem is he’s a very ball dominant player who needs the ball in his hands and specific ISO plays on offense and often if he goes cold he will try to shoot his way out of a slump.

Randle is a good player. He’s not a loser like Stephon Marbury or some other stat guys whose teams never make or made the playoffs. You can win with Randle but the ceiling is 4-7th seed and a first round exit

The strategy going forward should be trade Randle for picks in the offseason and either start Obi at PF or go with a smaller lineup with RJ at the 4.

Agree with you about the type of player Randle is. But you mentioned aspects every team needs. Problem is we need a better ONE option. As we see with JB, Randle is willing to hand that responsibility off. Problem is that JB, as good as he is, is not a true number one..
Also, we do not have knock down shooters around Julius. He kicked it out often to Grimes and IQ, RJ and the results were not real good. Do agree that he has to improve his efficiency and bball IQ.
Disagree that guys like Obi, Deuce, Sims, Hart are the guys we should judge this teams potential ceiling with a base of JB, RJ,JR, Grimes and IQ. Especially if we add a couple of solid shooters and a true number ONE.

One way to improve the other shooters on the team is sign mid level guys like Burks and Watanabe in the offseason. Ofcourse that also means we in turn have to get rid of Fournier’s awful contract and take 1-2 people out if the rotation

Randle did kick it out several times last night to open IQ and Grimes who bricked it. They also laid heavy brick on that 4 offensive rebound sequence

Philc1 wrote:The strategy going forward should be trade Randle for picks in the offseason and either start Obi at PF or go with a smaller lineup with RJ at the 4.

That's just not going to happen in the real world.

Just isn't.

There is no circumstances in which a playoff team perceived as on their way up trades a 2-year all-star in his prime for picks.

You can argue the basketball logic of it all day, and even make a rock solid argument.

But it won't happen.

fishmike wrote:some kind of Randle for KAT trade is feasible. At this point Randle is the better player and more likely scenario is some Obi/RJ package for KAT and put him with Randle and bring Mitch off the bench

I genuinely don't think that makes the KNicks a better team.

KnickDanger wrote:Ya bump the thread as a joke but some take it seriously....

Exactly. This thread DIED on only page 4; which is living proof how Julius Randle has quieted his naysaying non-believers (and I'm loving it) and probably won't take too long before 22 year old R.J. Barrett does the same.

Remember this thread?

LEAVE JULIUS RANDLE ALONE!!!!

😎

In all seriousness this dude has quickly became my 3rd favorite Knickerbocker of All-Time and only behind #33 Patrick Ewing and on the verge of passing Carmelo Anthony for me too (and I can never in a million years "kick him while he's down").