We don’t have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
Caseloads wrote:We don’t have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
Some might have noticed it sooner, but watching the Kings game, gave me the same thought.
"Exposed" might be over the top. Its something for the FO to consider in the offseason.
Tall dudes are good at basketball.
Caseloads wrote:We don't have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
What's the Minnesota Timberwolves record again?
NYKMentality wrote:Caseloads wrote:We don't have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
What's the Minnesota Timberwolves record again?
One win more than yesterday.
What's your point?
Panos wrote:NYKMentality wrote:Caseloads wrote:We don't have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
What's the Minnesota Timberwolves record again?
One win more than yesterday.
What's your point?
My point is I don't want "Minnesota type players".
What's their record again?
36-37?
Yeah. I'm good on those Minnesota players. 1 game doesn't change that either.
We beat them earlier in the year too.
There's a 2 in 10000 chance of a .36 3 shooter going 6-6. If Taurean was only that goodwe wouldn't be having this conversation.
NYKMentality wrote:Panos wrote:NYKMentality wrote:Caseloads wrote:We don't have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
What's the Minnesota Timberwolves record again?
One win more than yesterday.
What's your point?
My point is I don't want "Minnesota type players".
What's their record again?
36-37?
Yeah. I'm good on those Minnesota players. 1 game doesn't change that either.
We beat them earlier in the year too.
Since they beat us yesterday we should just go ahead and trade our whole team for their whole team. We would have not only a great winning percentage but also all of those taller players this year. ( We cannot go below.500 mathematically)
It is the same reason we have trouble with Toronto and Milwaukee. Both those teams have a lot of length with tall wiry players. We have strong players, but they are all a bit under size at their positions except for Mitch. Thus, teams with a lot of length give us problems. This is why I would like to replace RJ with a taller player, someone built like a Jeremi Grant.
TheGame wrote:It is the same reason we have trouble with Toronto and Milwaukee. Both those teams have a lot of length with tall wiry players. We have strong players, but they are all a bit under size at their positions except for Mitch. Thus, teams with a lot of length give us problems. This is why I would like to replace RJ with a taller player, someone built like a Jeremi Grant.
We have trouble guarding 6’8/6’9 tweener forwards who are too fast for Randle and too big and too strong for RJ and especially Grimes/Hart.
Panos wrote:NYKMentality wrote:Caseloads wrote:We don't have tall, long athletes like minn. we need to start going for these types of players too
What's the Minnesota Timberwolves record again?
One win more than yesterday.
What's your point?
he's not wrong tho... Knicks have done a good job keeping the right guys. We have more talent and better players. That also came at the sacrifice of size. We let guys like Frank, Knox, Reddish, Bullock, Iggy... guy's with good size go. We replaced them with BETTER TALENT for sure, but those guys are very small. This goes back to my "why RJ is a SG" and I thought you really saw that last night. Brunson/Grimes/RJ/IQ/Hart are our perimeter rotation and there is simply no size there. We make up for it tenacity and scoring. Its a 2-way crew for sure
I think the upgrade in talent shows in the record (NYKMentality + green check box) for the Knicks. We have better players. I also think their size really hurt us and surely equalized some of that talent gap.
What a comically inept series of posts...
They shot lights out. Sometimes it happens. Take the loss and move on
longtimeknicksfan wrote:They shot lights out. Sometimes it happens. Take the loss and move on
Any any given night, any NBA team can beat another. No one loss means anything other than a regular season NBA game was played.
The measure of a team will also be in macro. Knicks are a good team, Wolves are an okay team. That didn't change last night.
To me, not assuming the game WAS a win before it was played or reading it as an indictment of the Knicks after it was played is simply understanding... and respecting, the NBA.
Knickoftime wrote:What a comically inept series of posts...
I tried.. on the comical front
Philc1 wrote:Cam who?
We tall players who are good though.
Knixkik wrote:Philc1 wrote:Cam who?
We tall players who are good though.
exactly... see my post above. Tall is nice. Better is better. Frank/Knox/Cam were tall... McBride/IQ/Grimes are not... but they ARE better. Add Hart/Brunson to that mix and you have a lot of good (and short by NBA standards) players.
The biometrics argument is something I subscribe to. I generally am hoping for athletic players with long wingspan. I prefer that to skill players. At the college level, skill dominates more than athleticism. But once the long athletic players start training professionally, they can make up that ground and then some. I don’t need to pick a player from the skill vs biometric category to argue individually. Each category has studs and duds. But for me, I am leaning toward the biometric players in nearly every instance with the belief it is the teams’s responsibility to develop the player’s game.
So, yeah, I might have actually had Cam above Barrett before that draft. I may be wrong on that from time to time. But looking forward, a guy like Rayan Rupert is high on my list purely from a biometric standpoint.
EwingsGlass wrote:The biometrics argument is something I subscribe to. I generally am hoping for athletic players with long wingspan. I prefer that to skill players. At the college level, skill dominates more than athleticism. But once the long athletic players start training professionally, they can make up that ground and then some. I don’t need to pick a player from the skill vs biometric category to argue individually. Each category has studs and duds. But for me, I am leaning toward the biometric players in nearly every instance with the belief it is the teams’s responsibility to develop the player’s game. So, yeah, I might have actually had Cam above Barrett before that draft. I may be wrong on that from time to time. But looking forward, a guy like Rayan Rupert is high on my list purely from a biometric standpoint.
Tall with motor. The okc, raps, bucks, minny, way
Caseloads wrote:Tall with motor. The okc, raps, minny, way
OKC = 36-36.
Toronto = 35-37.
Minnesota = 36-37.
Na. No thank you.
I'll rather do it the New York Knicks way (42-31).
