HofstraBBall wrote:Knixkik wrote:ramtour420 wrote:Oh and Randle is back to his last year antics. I don't think Randle is a championship caliber guy right now. He might become one in a few years but he is too easily rattled and that's a damn disaster waiting to happen in the playoffs again
It’s clear he gets easily rattled as the #1 but not as the #2. So I’m not worried about it.
Wonder how Mase or Oak would have reacted after a whole game of this?
Probably quietly like you expected from Randle.
It's clear that Randle needs to stop paying attention to refs. Be smarter. But let's not pretend we celebrated the same fire in other fan favorites and did not put them down for it as much as we do with Randle.
The real blame is him going 5-24. That can't happen.
What I am about to say hurts me to admit as much as the next guy. Mase and Oak never won a championship either. What stuck with me is MJ saying it's 90% mental and only 10% physical. Think about it in that sence
ramtour420 wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Knixkik wrote:ramtour420 wrote:Oh and Randle is back to his last year antics. I don't think Randle is a championship caliber guy right now. He might become one in a few years but he is too easily rattled and that's a damn disaster waiting to happen in the playoffs again
It’s clear he gets easily rattled as the #1 but not as the #2. So I’m not worried about it.
Wonder how Mase or Oak would have reacted after a whole game of this?
Probably quietly like you expected from Randle.
It's clear that Randle needs to stop paying attention to refs. Be smarter. But let's not pretend we celebrated the same fire in other fan favorites and did not put them down for it as much as we do with Randle.
The real blame is him going 5-24. That can't happen.
What I am about to say hurts me to admit as much as the next guy. Mase and Oak never won a championship either. What stuck with me is MJ saying it's 90% mental and only 10% physical. Think about it in that sence
MJ was the best player of all time. Mase and Oak at 100% mental strength would not have made a dent in any of the Bulls chips.
Point was, Randle's fire is frowned upon by those that do not like him.
There have been many other Knicks with same internal anger that the same fans probably had no problem with. Think Randle has a lot he can improve. Including, as you pointed out, the mental game. But he reminds me of other Knicks I also liked. Many that were not the smartest or controlled their tempers well. Liked the fight in them and the dog mentality. Starks comes to mind. Remember many a game where he lost it. Mase, Oak, Xman and Greg Anthony also come to mind.
Do agree that he has to get batter at channeling that anger towards winning though. Especially since refs are always going to fuck up and have stints of one sidedness.
have folks watched the NBA this year? Literally every team is a borderline lottery team without their best player except the Bucks who are fantastic. This is so silly. Yes we are not as good without Brunson.
Brunson/Randle are really good and losing either is going to hurt.... big time. This is why teams like the Lakers/Clippers/GSW are all fighting for a playoff berth. Literally. Knicks are doing a good job building depth, but its still early to ask guys like IQ/McBride to keep running the table with you lose your best player
fishmike wrote:have folks watched the NBA this year? Literally every team is a borderline lottery team without their best player except the Bucks who are fantastic. This is so silly. Yes we are not as good without Brunson.Brunson/Randle are really good and losing either is going to hurt.... big time. This is why teams like the Lakers/Clippers/GSW are all fighting for a playoff berth. Literally. Knicks are doing a good job building depth, but its still early to ask guys like IQ/McBride to keep running the table with you lose your best player
You're right of course about the importance of a star player. Especially the starting PG.
Briggs can correct me if Im wrong, but I believe he wasnt just talking about Brunson's abscence. But also Randle's big drop in production (and decision making) at the time. Without JB. Thats the killer.
Jules looked better last night. As I wrote in the gamethread, RJ and Randle looked like they were making more of a concerted effort to win the game together, instead of double heroball. He played more at the end of the game like he does with Brunson.
GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:have folks watched the NBA this year? Literally every team is a borderline lottery team without their best player except the Bucks who are fantastic. This is so silly. Yes we are not as good without Brunson.Brunson/Randle are really good and losing either is going to hurt.... big time. This is why teams like the Lakers/Clippers/GSW are all fighting for a playoff berth. Literally. Knicks are doing a good job building depth, but its still early to ask guys like IQ/McBride to keep running the table with you lose your best player
You're right of course about the importance of a star player. Especially the starting PG.
Briggs can correct me if Im wrong, but I believe he wasnt just talking about Brunson's abscence. But also Randle's big drop in production (and decision making) at the time. Without JB. Thats the killer.
Jules looked better last night. As I wrote in the gamethread, RJ and Randle looked like they were making more of a concerted effort to win the game together, instead of double heroball. He played more at the end of the game like he does with Brunson.
Briggs like to start threads but not discuss.
Randle was all NBA without Brunson. It was Elf and Drose who drove the bus that year.
But that was then. Briggs is usually about whats in front of him that day. Knicks play bad, we bad.
Knicks on a streak, maybe we are really contending.
Watch a college game, find a video highlight reel, he "discovered" a new player.
Its all good.
Lets just say preseason prognostications was knicks were to struggle to play in. Well, we might be a play in team after all. If not, we a lottery team.
One can say that about most teams without their key player.
Nalod wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:have folks watched the NBA this year? Literally every team is a borderline lottery team without their best player except the Bucks who are fantastic. This is so silly. Yes we are not as good without Brunson.Brunson/Randle are really good and losing either is going to hurt.... big time. This is why teams like the Lakers/Clippers/GSW are all fighting for a playoff berth. Literally. Knicks are doing a good job building depth, but its still early to ask guys like IQ/McBride to keep running the table with you lose your best player
You're right of course about the importance of a star player. Especially the starting PG.
Briggs can correct me if Im wrong, but I believe he wasnt just talking about Brunson's abscence. But also Randle's big drop in production (and decision making) at the time. Without JB. Thats the killer.
Jules looked better last night. As I wrote in the gamethread, RJ and Randle looked like they were making more of a concerted effort to win the game together, instead of double heroball. He played more at the end of the game like he does with Brunson.
Briggs like to start threads but not discuss.
Randle was all NBA without Brunson. It was Elf and Drose who drove the bus that year.
But that was then. Briggs is usually about whats in front of him that day. Knicks play bad, we bad.
Knicks on a streak, maybe we are really contending.
Watch a college game, find a video highlight reel, he "discovered" a new player.
Its all good.
Lets just say preseason prognostications was knicks were to struggle to play in. Well, we might be a play in team after all. If not, we a lottery team.
One can say that about most teams without their key player.
I dont believe anyone expected that kind of a dropoff from Randle without Brunson. Almost across the board.
Payton and Rose attacking the rim made it easier for Randle to work. That Randle had a lot less miles on the odometer. Jules is once again leading the league in minutes, but he's doing it right now without Brunson.
Why Brunson missing a lot of games would be a disaster. Randle leading the league in minutes in the past (without JB) has meant a drop off in performance late in the season, the playoffs.
Im pretty sure they wont rush JB back this time. Hopefully he will be back in a few games.
Knicks are 5-4 @ .555% without Jalen Brunson this year and have beaten some really good teams without him too (Miami + especially Boston).
I absolutely love Jalen Brunson and can't wait for his return but these Knicks of 2023 (without Jalen Brunson) would become nothing close to a "borderline lottery team"
C; Mitchell Robinson.
PF: Julius Randle.
SF: R.J. Barrett.
SG: Quentin Grimes.
PG: Immanuel Quickley.
C; Isaiah Hartenstein.
PF: Obi Toppin.
SF: Josh Hart.
PG: Deuce McBride.
Way too much talent to resemble a tank and/or lottery team (with or without Jalen Brunson).
That winning percentage of .555% (5-4) without Jalen Brunson would still = the NBA's 10th best overall winning percentage.
No. These Knicks of 2023 aren't a "borderline lottery team" without Jalen Brunson.
We're obviously a much deeper and much better team with Jalen Brunson due to Jalen Brunson himself being an elite Starting PG; but the team he's playing PG alongside of resembles absolutely nothingness to a tank/lotto team (his teammates are now just, too talented).
fishmike wrote:have folks watched the NBA this year? Literally every team is a borderline lottery team without their best player except the Bucks who are fantastic. This is so silly. Yes we are not as good without Brunson.Brunson/Randle are really good and losing either is going to hurt.... big time. This is why teams like the Lakers/Clippers/GSW are all fighting for a playoff berth. Literally. Knicks are doing a good job building depth, but its still early to ask guys like IQ/McBride to keep running the table with you lose your best player
This. Bottom line is you gotta have players. No team is 10-11 deep on the roster. We went from Elf and Alec Burks to Brunson. That’s an enormous upgrade
