Knicks · Biggest questions to be answered in first month? (page 2)

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:IMHO, IQ is our starting SG.
Will give Grimes more opportunity to get things going and expand his offense on the second unit
Also feel, IQ is not a true PG and units have no flow when he is the PG.

Will never happen

Curious to read why you think that?

Believe the first unit needs someone to create off the catch
Grimes has not been able to do that.
Believe first unit needs a SG who is not afraid to put up shots.
IQ is much more aggressive and not afraid despite having starters on floor. .
We have already seen IQ in with the first unit to end many games.

Would like to see it because if you look at the top teams, their offensive success comes from having multiple guys who can catch, make a three but also drive on rotating defenses. They have a constant mechanism in place of drive, kick, rotate until they get an open look. IQ fits much better in that mold than Grimes

However, it will happen but think it will be predicated on two things. Whether IQ gets an extension from the Knicks. (Hard to see the Knicks commit that kind of money to a bench player.) And whether or not Grimes breaks out this year. Love the kid, but have not seen him improve the things, I feel, will allow him to do so.

I think that you and I would both agree that 1 preseason game has no bearing on this type of decision, right? These are typically long term team decision and individual development plans going on and they are typically done over months at a time given the type of player and circumstance. For instance, even Kemba got like 20+ games to see how he shook out and Cam got maybe 15 games to see what's there. Jericho will get preseason time to see how he is and that's it. That's typical with any sound coach; for the level of player that is Grimes or IQ, you give them all year to see how they do in their role. You can't willy-nilly change things up for players that are learning, and it is exactly what they are both still doing while also in a winning games path.

As well, when you make this types of changes, if indeed you think that Grimes is better off the bench for starter IQ, you need to be very very assured of that decision. You can't just flip the switch for a couple of weeks and then change your mind again if it doesn't work out for whatever reason. Cause that fucks with players, just the reality of that type of deicison-making.

I don't think it is a stretch to also say that we can't just make the assessment based on exactly 1 aspect of the game, right? You have pointed out 1 thing to compare when we know that that can't be the ONLY thing the coaching staff is look in at. For instance, how does it effect that starters defense? How does it effect spacing. How does it effect the time Brunson and IQ share the court and PG duties. How does having an extra SG on the bench with your other SG's of DDV, Hart come into play? How does IQ not getting PG reps effect his long term dev and play? Knicks are also wanting to develop IQ as a PG. Put IQ in as a man-to-man defender and he is less effective. Put in IQ as a spacer while taking away his PG minutes and you are making him less effective at what he does.

On your point: IQ was pretty darn aggressive with his play last night and certainly much more aggressive with the ball than Grimes was all of last year too. But that is how their roles were defined for them; it's exactly - give or take - what the staff has asked them to do. IQ is a combo guard who also plays the backup PG position, so it is natural for him to both have ball in hands and for him to force the issue going to basket; that was his job. Grimes has been asked to be a high level man-to-man defender and spacer for RJ, Randle, Brunson. Those 3 guys (along with Mitch who is hanging around the basket) need the middle of the court open for them, and that's exactly what Grimes does for them. Can IQ do that too? Sure, but that's not his main focus.

We all know Grimes needs to add that to his game, and for his dev path, that's the next step. As well, he is an infinitely better man defender than IQ as a starter. Grimes plays with RJ, Brunson, Randle; his path to getting better usage in that lineup is a slow evolve but should happen. And not for nothing, you WANT it to happen with other guys that compliment his game too. He should get better shots from the outside with those guys getting downhill to the rim. Once Grimes gets in that 40%+ range, the middle will open up for him even more but we gotta wait for that to happen.

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:How will we handle the tough schedule to start? Will Thibs lose his voice amid the losing? Remember it's year five and coaches like Thibs eventually get tuned out and ignored. I can see a scenario where we start off like 6-14 or 7-13 and Ross get's pressured into firing Thibs and making a change.

It's wild to me how pessimistic you are about everything.

BTW, this is the start of the 4th year for Thibs and FO.

The Knicks franchise is in the best hands from both the FO and coaching level that they have had in years. And it has shown by their play and continuity over the past seasons.

Enjoy it man. Our team is actually very very good and is also very very well run.

It's not being pessimistic. We've only had 5 winning seasons the last 20 years and haven't had back to back winning seasons in 10 years. Taking a step back this season and winning under 47 games can happen. The schedule to start the season is tough and we're know to start off slow. We started 11-15 in the pandemic season and 10-13 last season. Not crazy to think we can get off to an even worse start this season which can trigger a change at HC.

SergioNYK wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:How will we handle the tough schedule to start? Will Thibs lose his voice amid the losing? Remember it's year five and coaches like Thibs eventually get tuned out and ignored. I can see a scenario where we start off like 6-14 or 7-13 and Ross get's pressured into firing Thibs and making a change.

It's wild to me how pessimistic you are about everything.

BTW, this is the start of the 4th year for Thibs and FO.

The Knicks franchise is in the best hands from both the FO and coaching level that they have had in years. And it has shown by their play and continuity over the past seasons.

Enjoy it man. Our team is actually very very good and is also very very well run.

It's not being pessimistic. We've only had 5 winning seasons the last 20 years and haven't had back to back winning seasons in 10 years. Taking a step back this season and winning under 47 games can happen. The schedule to start the season is tough and we're know to start off slow. We started 11-15 in the pandemic season and 10-13 last season. Not crazy to think we can get off to an even worse start this season which can trigger a change at HC.

Bro this is the pure definition of wildly pessimistic: "I can see a scenario where we start off like 6-14 or 7-13 and Ross get's pressured into firing Thibs and making a change." - SergioNYK

When you were young and wild and free, did you judge the new girl that you just started to date by the one you just dumped who was awful to you? Cause that's what you are doing here in bringing up " We've only had 5 winning seasons the last 20 years and haven't had back to back winning seasons in 10 years." Those things have ZERO to do with this new crop of players, coaches and FO.

The Knicks are not flawless and are certainly prone to starting the first 10 games 4-6 or going 9-11 over the first 20 game, but give us a break with the pessimism.

What was the Knicks record with pretty much the same exact roster from Feb onward last year after Josh Hart joined the team? Also coincided with the toughest portion of their schedule if I recall correctly.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced...

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:

martin wrote:

SergioNYK wrote:How will we handle the tough schedule to start? Will Thibs lose his voice amid the losing? Remember it's year five and coaches like Thibs eventually get tuned out and ignored. I can see a scenario where we start off like 6-14 or 7-13 and Ross get's pressured into firing Thibs and making a change.

It's wild to me how pessimistic you are about everything.

BTW, this is the start of the 4th year for Thibs and FO.

The Knicks franchise is in the best hands from both the FO and coaching level that they have had in years. And it has shown by their play and continuity over the past seasons.

Enjoy it man. Our team is actually very very good and is also very very well run.

It's not being pessimistic. We've only had 5 winning seasons the last 20 years and haven't had back to back winning seasons in 10 years. Taking a step back this season and winning under 47 games can happen. The schedule to start the season is tough and we're know to start off slow. We started 11-15 in the pandemic season and 10-13 last season. Not crazy to think we can get off to an even worse start this season which can trigger a change at HC.

Bro this is the pure definition of wildly pessimistic: "I can see a scenario where we start off like 6-14 or 7-13 and Ross get's pressured into firing Thibs and making a change." - SergioNYK

When you were young and wild and free, did you judge the new girl that you just started to date by the one you just dumped who was awful to you? Cause that's what you are doing here in bringing up " We've only had 5 winning seasons the last 20 years and haven't had back to back winning seasons in 10 years." Those things have ZERO to do with this new crop of players, coaches and FO.

The Knicks are not flawless and are certainly prone to starting the first 10 games 4-6 or going 9-11 over the first 20 game, but give us a break with the pessimism.

What was the Knicks record with pretty much the same exact roster from Feb onward last year after Josh Hart joined the team? Also coincided with the toughest portion of their schedule if I recall correctly.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced...

My question to be answered - "how much of a losing streak will it take for some fans to want to hit the panic button?" My guess would have been two, but it might be one. But for some it may be after winning our first game of the preseason!

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:IMHO, IQ is our starting SG.
Will give Grimes more opportunity to get things going and expand his offense on the second unit
Also feel, IQ is not a true PG and units have no flow when he is the PG.

Will never happen

Curious to read why you think that?

Believe the first unit needs someone to create off the catch
Grimes has not been able to do that.
Believe first unit needs a SG who is not afraid to put up shots.
IQ is much more aggressive and not afraid despite having starters on floor. .
We have already seen IQ in with the first unit to end many games.

Would like to see it because if you look at the top teams, their offensive success comes from having multiple guys who can catch, make a three but also drive on rotating defenses. They have a constant mechanism in place of drive, kick, rotate until they get an open look. IQ fits much better in that mold than Grimes

However, it will happen but think it will be predicated on two things. Whether IQ gets an extension from the Knicks. (Hard to see the Knicks commit that kind of money to a bench player.) And whether or not Grimes breaks out this year. Love the kid, but have not seen him improve the things, I feel, will allow him to do so.

I think that you and I would both agree that 1 preseason game has no bearing on this type of decision, right? These are typically long term team decision and individual development plans going on and they are typically done over months at a time given the type of player and circumstance. For instance, even Kemba got like 20+ games to see how he shook out and Cam got maybe 15 games to see what's there. Jericho will get preseason time to see how he is and that's it. That's typical with any sound coach; for the level of player that is Grimes or IQ, you give them all year to see how they do in their role. You can't willy-nilly change things up for players that are learning, and it is exactly what they are both still doing while also in a winning games path.

As well, when you make this types of changes, if indeed you think that Grimes is better off the bench for starter IQ, you need to be very very assured of that decision. You can't just flip the switch for a couple of weeks and then change your mind again if it doesn't work out for whatever reason. Cause that fucks with players, just the reality of that type of deicison-making.

I don't think it is a stretch to also say that we can't just make the assessment based on exactly 1 aspect of the game, right? You have pointed out 1 thing to compare when we know that that can't be the ONLY thing the coaching staff is look in at. For instance, how does it effect that starters defense? How does it effect spacing. How does it effect the time Brunson and IQ share the court and PG duties. How does having an extra SG on the bench with your other SG's of DDV, Hart come into play? How does IQ not getting PG reps effect his long term dev and play? Knicks are also wanting to develop IQ as a PG. Put IQ in as a man-to-man defender and he is less effective. Put in IQ as a spacer while taking away his PG minutes and you are making him less effective at what he does.

On your point: IQ was pretty darn aggressive with his play last night and certainly much more aggressive with the ball than Grimes was all of last year too. But that is how their roles were defined for them; it's exactly - give or take - what the staff has asked them to do. IQ is a combo guard who also plays the backup PG position, so it is natural for him to both have ball in hands and for him to force the issue going to basket; that was his job. Grimes has been asked to be a high level man-to-man defender and spacer for RJ, Randle, Brunson. Those 3 guys (along with Mitch who is hanging around the basket) need the middle of the court open for them, and that's exactly what Grimes does for them. Can IQ do that too? Sure, but that's not his main focus.

We all know Grimes needs to add that to his game, and for his dev path, that's the next step. As well, he is an infinitely better man defender than IQ as a starter. Grimes plays with RJ, Brunson, Randle; his path to getting better usage in that lineup is a slow evolve but should happen. And not for nothing, you WANT it to happen with other guys that compliment his game too. He should get better shots from the outside with those guys getting downhill to the rim. Once Grimes gets in that 40%+ range, the middle will open up for him even more but we gotta wait for that to happen.

Agree with a lot of this. You brought up a couple of points I have not considered. Especially the one regarding Knicks still needing to develop IQ. Agreed. But feel that IQs true development is not as a PG but rather a SG.

Agree this is not a decision made after one preseason game. Nor 20 games. My feeling is based on a much bigger sample size. We have seen Grimes play for 2 years. We all know what he needs to improve. Question has always been fan hope vs player actual ceiling. We have also had a large sample size of how IQ and Grimes play with the first unit. So unless we are talking changing the major parts of the first unit, think most can conclude IQ is probably a better fit.

Agree that it will have to be a decision based on long term planning. The way I see it, what is already on the table is a possible extension for IQ or a trade trade for a top tier wing. The trade will require the Knicks to include a couple of their young assets. Ie. Grimes. FO is deciding whether Grimes is or will be a top tier SG? They are also deciding if IQ is worth an extension? With what we have seen over the last couple of years, it seems to me, that IQ is closer to being a starting SG on a top tier team than Grimes is. Don't see why we would give up on a player who has produced as much over a player who has only shown some potential to do the same.
Like I said, fan hope is always bigger than fan perception.

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:IMHO, IQ is our starting SG.
Will give Grimes more opportunity to get things going and expand his offense on the second unit
Also feel, IQ is not a true PG and units have no flow when he is the PG.

Will never happen

Curious to read why you think that?

Believe the first unit needs someone to create off the catch
Grimes has not been able to do that.
Believe first unit needs a SG who is not afraid to put up shots.
IQ is much more aggressive and not afraid despite having starters on floor. .
We have already seen IQ in with the first unit to end many games.

Would like to see it because if you look at the top teams, their offensive success comes from having multiple guys who can catch, make a three but also drive on rotating defenses. They have a constant mechanism in place of drive, kick, rotate until they get an open look. IQ fits much better in that mold than Grimes

However, it will happen but think it will be predicated on two things. Whether IQ gets an extension from the Knicks. (Hard to see the Knicks commit that kind of money to a bench player.) And whether or not Grimes breaks out this year. Love the kid, but have not seen him improve the things, I feel, will allow him to do so.

I think that you and I would both agree that 1 preseason game has no bearing on this type of decision, right? These are typically long term team decision and individual development plans going on and they are typically done over months at a time given the type of player and circumstance. For instance, even Kemba got like 20+ games to see how he shook out and Cam got maybe 15 games to see what's there. Jericho will get preseason time to see how he is and that's it. That's typical with any sound coach; for the level of player that is Grimes or IQ, you give them all year to see how they do in their role. You can't willy-nilly change things up for players that are learning, and it is exactly what they are both still doing while also in a winning games path.

As well, when you make this types of changes, if indeed you think that Grimes is better off the bench for starter IQ, you need to be very very assured of that decision. You can't just flip the switch for a couple of weeks and then change your mind again if it doesn't work out for whatever reason. Cause that fucks with players, just the reality of that type of deicison-making.

I don't think it is a stretch to also say that we can't just make the assessment based on exactly 1 aspect of the game, right? You have pointed out 1 thing to compare when we know that that can't be the ONLY thing the coaching staff is look in at. For instance, how does it effect that starters defense? How does it effect spacing. How does it effect the time Brunson and IQ share the court and PG duties. How does having an extra SG on the bench with your other SG's of DDV, Hart come into play? How does IQ not getting PG reps effect his long term dev and play? Knicks are also wanting to develop IQ as a PG. Put IQ in as a man-to-man defender and he is less effective. Put in IQ as a spacer while taking away his PG minutes and you are making him less effective at what he does.

On your point: IQ was pretty darn aggressive with his play last night and certainly much more aggressive with the ball than Grimes was all of last year too. But that is how their roles were defined for them; it's exactly - give or take - what the staff has asked them to do. IQ is a combo guard who also plays the backup PG position, so it is natural for him to both have ball in hands and for him to force the issue going to basket; that was his job. Grimes has been asked to be a high level man-to-man defender and spacer for RJ, Randle, Brunson. Those 3 guys (along with Mitch who is hanging around the basket) need the middle of the court open for them, and that's exactly what Grimes does for them. Can IQ do that too? Sure, but that's not his main focus.

We all know Grimes needs to add that to his game, and for his dev path, that's the next step. As well, he is an infinitely better man defender than IQ as a starter. Grimes plays with RJ, Brunson, Randle; his path to getting better usage in that lineup is a slow evolve but should happen. And not for nothing, you WANT it to happen with other guys that compliment his game too. He should get better shots from the outside with those guys getting downhill to the rim. Once Grimes gets in that 40%+ range, the middle will open up for him even more but we gotta wait for that to happen.

Agree with a lot of this. You brought up a couple of points I have not considered. Especially the one regarding Knicks still needing to develop IQ. Agreed. But feel that IQs true development is not as a PG but rather a SG.

Agree this is not a decision made after one preseason game. Nor 20 games. My feeling is based on a much bigger sample size. We have seen Grimes play for 2 years. We all know what he needs to improve. Question has always been fan hope vs player actual ceiling. We have also had a large sample size of how IQ and Grimes play with the first unit. So unless we are talking changing the major parts of the first unit, think most can conclude IQ is probably a better fit.

Agree that it will have to be a decision based on long term planning. The way I see it, what's in the table is a possible extension for IQ or a trade trade for a top tier wing. The trade will require the Knicks including a couple of their young assets. FO will decide if Grimes is a top tier SG? Is IQ worth an extension? With what we have seen, it seems to me, that IQ is closer to being a starting SG on a top tier team than Grimes. Don't see why we would give up on a player who has shown as much as IQ for a player that we keep hoping reaches out hoped potential.

Plus Thibs just loves Grimes more than we all love Jessica Alba. Or Rebecca. It's that much love

HofstraBBall wrote:Agree with a lot of this. You brought up a couple of points I have not considered. Especially the one regarding Knicks still needing to develop IQ. Agreed. But feel that IQs true development is not as a PG but rather a SG.

Agree this is not a decision made after one preseason game. Nor 20 games. My feeling is based on a much bigger sample size. We have seen Grimes play for 2 years. We all know what he needs to improve. Question has always been fan hope vs player actual ceiling. We have also had a large sample size of how IQ and Grimes play with the first unit. So unless we are talking changing the major parts of the first unit, think most can conclude IQ is probably a better fit.

Agree that it will have to be a decision based on long term planning. The way I see it, what is already on the table is a possible extension for IQ or a trade trade for a top tier wing. The trade will require the Knicks including a couple of their young assets. FO will decide if Grimes is a top tier SG? Is IQ worth an extension? With what we have seen, it seems to me, that IQ is closer to being a starting SG on a top tier team than Grimes. Don't see why we would give up on a player who has shown as much as IQ for a player that we keep hoping reaches out hoped potential.

HofstraBBall, I need to ask you about how you phrased this sentence. When you say "But feel that", do you mean You feel that or Thibs feels that or FO feels that?

Cause I think those are different answers.

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Agree with a lot of this. You brought up a couple of points I have not considered. Especially the one regarding Knicks still needing to develop IQ. Agreed. But feel that IQs true development is not as a PG but rather a SG.

Agree this is not a decision made after one preseason game. Nor 20 games. My feeling is based on a much bigger sample size. We have seen Grimes play for 2 years. We all know what he needs to improve. Question has always been fan hope vs player actual ceiling. We have also had a large sample size of how IQ and Grimes play with the first unit. So unless we are talking changing the major parts of the first unit, think most can conclude IQ is probably a better fit.

Agree that it will have to be a decision based on long term planning. The way I see it, what is already on the table is a possible extension for IQ or a trade trade for a top tier wing. The trade will require the Knicks including a couple of their young assets. FO will decide if Grimes is a top tier SG? Is IQ worth an extension? With what we have seen, it seems to me, that IQ is closer to being a starting SG on a top tier team than Grimes. Don't see why we would give up on a player who has shown as much as IQ for a player that we keep hoping reaches out hoped potential.

HofstraBBall, I need to ask you about how you phrased this sentence. When you say "But feel that", do you mean You feel that or Thibs feels that or FO feels that?

Cause I think those are different answers.

Absolutely my opinion. With everything I have seen, IQ is a shoot first wing. He can excel in PnR a bit but seldomly does so. I have always thought of him as a Lou Williams type. Who was definitely not a conventional PG.

The FO was probably just happy to have IQ become the PG solution to make up for the bad play/signing of Kemba. They see him as a valuable young piece.

Feel Thibs sees him as a good SG option who fits with first unit. (Thibs used him in that role at the end of several games last year). Through necessity, also sees him as the best backup PG option currently on the roster.

As we agreed, this will be a long term decision. No way that we pay IQ to be a long term backup.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

nycericanguy wrote:

EwingPSD wrote:How good is DDV. Is the question I am most interested in right now. So many seem really high on him

he's a solid role player, nothing more nothing less.

To me we'll see early on if RJ has taken another step. I expect him to come in more confident, better shot selection and reading collapsing defenses better.

RJ showed lots of confidence in FIBA. But feel he already had plenty of that. He made shots so all was good. Except for last couple of games when it wasn't. Problem was that he showed none of the other things mentioned.

Biggest issue for RJ is being a better passer and hitting threes. Which has been my main concern for the entire team the last few years. Did not list it as a question for me as I know we did nothing to improve that . Except for DDV who does help with that.

RJ will continue to be a bull to the basket but don't see his passing or three point shooting drastically improving.

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

You just described IQ.

nycericanguy wrote:

EwingPSD wrote:How good is DDV. Is the question I am most interested in right now. So many seem really high on him

he's a solid role player, nothing more nothing less.

To me we'll see early on if RJ has taken another step. I expect him to come in more confident, better shot selection and reading collapsing defenses better.

Just curious what you mean by another step?

I don't think we will see much improvement from RJ, outside of what we already saw in FIBA and in the playoffs.

RJ's ceiling is linked to roster makeup. I'm still not a fan of having 5 guys who all get major minutes, while fighting over paint real estate.

All these guys are fighting to score in the paint and the other teams know this.

RJ
Brunson
Randle
Mitch
Josh Hart

Grimes is VERY IMPORTANT to that starting lineup. DDV is the same. Both are the best catch and shoot players IN THIBS ROTATION. I'm assuming EF goes back to Thibs dog house. Will be interesting to see how Thibs manages the rotation this year and the first month will tell me a lot about his rotation strategy.

BTW....IQ wants to be a starting PG. He doesn't want to be labeled as a combo guard or just a SG. Just like at work. You tell manage what you want to become and they try to put you in those positions. IQ is groomed to be a PG so backing up Brunson fits his career path and fills a team need.

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

You just described IQ.

Obvious that is IQ. Which is why I said Thibs has him there. But you are forgetting that there is also a need for that type of player at the starting SG position. We both just agreed IQ is ALREADY that.

Secondly, as mentioned before, also believe that Grimes needs to learn how to be that. And that the best place to do so is in second unit where it will be required of him. Hope is that Grimes on second unit may do what it did for IQ.

Still don't understand the notion this is such a silly idea. Especially since we saw exactly what I'm describing happen so many times last year. But mostly when it really counted. Which was at the end of games. So apparently Thibs also sees the better fit.

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

You just described IQ.

Obvious that is IQ. Which is why I said Thibs has him there. But you are forgetting that there is also a need for that type of player at the starting SG position. We both just agreed IQ is ALREADY that.

Secondly, as mentioned before, also believe that Grimes needs to learn how to be that. And that the best place to do so is in second unit where it will be required of him. Hope is that Grimes on second unit may do what it did for IQ.

Still don't understand the notion this is such a silly idea. Especially since we saw exactly what I'm describing happen so many times last year. But mostly when it really counted. Which was at the end of games. So apparently Thibs also sees the better fit.

A lot of players could be in a better position off the bench to learn stuff. Grimes is one, so is IQ as a PG. Grimes is also learning a lot by starting, like being the prime man defender on the other teams best player; it also helps the team win games, which is also very important.

For instance, we all want Mitch to be a better offensive player. But no one is suggesting he should come off the bench to practice that with the second unit. Because there are pros and cons to doing this.

RJ could come off the bench to practice his shooting and rim drives with finishes against second units. But there are tradeoffs in doing this too.

Mitch, Grimes and RJ could all come off the bench to improve their games. But no way in hell any sound coach does this.

IMHO it's silly to suggest. Mainly, cause it'll never happen for a lot of other really good reasons.

Grimes can learn the things you are asking him by starting too. And he will.

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

You just described IQ.

Obvious that is IQ. Which is why I said Thibs has him there. But you are forgetting that there is also a need for that type of player at the starting SG position. We both just agreed IQ is ALREADY that.

Secondly, as mentioned before, also believe that Grimes needs to learn how to be that. And that the best place to do so is in second unit where it will be required of him. Hope is that Grimes on second unit may do what it did for IQ.

Still don't understand the notion this is such a silly idea. Especially since we saw exactly what I'm describing happen so many times last year. But mostly when it really counted. Which was at the end of games. So apparently Thibs also sees the better fit.

A lot of players could be in a better position off the bench to learn stuff. Grimes is one, so is IQ as a PG. Grimes is also learning a lot by starting, like being the prime man defender on the other teams best player; it also helps the team win games, which is also very important.

For instance, we all want Mitch to be a better offensive player. But no one is suggesting he should come off the bench to practice that with the second unit. Because there are pros and cons to doing this.

RJ could come off the bench to practice his shooting and rim drives with finishes against second units. But there are tradeoffs in doing this too.

Mitch, Grimes and RJ could all come off the bench to improve their games. But no way in hell any sound coach does this.

IMHO it's silly to suggest. Mainly, cause it'll never happen for a lot of other really good reasons.

Grimes can learn the things you are asking him by starting too. And he will.

So Grimes should be given the starting nod despite, as you said, being the player that needs to learn more? Despite IQ being the player that as we both said, is already that?

If Grimes continues to miss 3pt shots, he will be moved to the second unit. And possibly to another team. I am for rewarding guys that are already proven to be solid consistent contributors. Right now, IQ has proven that and Grimes is still just a hopeful.

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

You just described IQ.

Obvious that is IQ. Which is why I said Thibs has him there. But you are forgetting that there is also a need for that type of player at the starting SG position. We both just agreed IQ is ALREADY that.

Secondly, as mentioned before, also believe that Grimes needs to learn how to be that. And that the best place to do so is in second unit where it will be required of him. Hope is that Grimes on second unit may do what it did for IQ.

Still don't understand the notion this is such a silly idea. Especially since we saw exactly what I'm describing happen so many times last year. But mostly when it really counted. Which was at the end of games. So apparently Thibs also sees the better fit.

A lot of players could be in a better position off the bench to learn stuff. Grimes is one, so is IQ as a PG. Grimes is also learning a lot by starting, like being the prime man defender on the other teams best player; it also helps the team win games, which is also very important.

For instance, we all want Mitch to be a better offensive player. But no one is suggesting he should come off the bench to practice that with the second unit. Because there are pros and cons to doing this.

RJ could come off the bench to practice his shooting and rim drives with finishes against second units. But there are tradeoffs in doing this too.

Mitch, Grimes and RJ could all come off the bench to improve their games. But no way in hell any sound coach does this.

IMHO it's silly to suggest. Mainly, cause it'll never happen for a lot of other really good reasons.

Grimes can learn the things you are asking him by starting too. And he will.

So Grimes should be given the starting nod despite, as you said, being the player that needs to learn more? Despite IQ being the player that as we both said, is already that?

If Grimes continues to miss 3pt shots, he will be moved to the second unit. And possibly to another team. I am for rewarding guys that are already proven to be solid consistent contributors. Right now, IQ has proven that and Grimes is still just a hopeful.

IQ is the better scorer. That's not what that line up needs more of.

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

martin wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

Rookie wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:It could be interesting to see if IQ takes the starting SG spot. I mean having a 2nd ballhandler out there who can also create could be beneficial. We don't lose much shooting or defense either. I'm high on Grimes but I want to see some aggressive on offense instead of just always waiting for an open shot.

Really hope we extend IQ. dont want to start the season with IQ playing for a contract, wanting to start...etc...

Grimes was much more engaged and played better with the second unit. The problem is if IQ starts, who is your backup PG and who scores on that unit? Deuce doesn't look like more than a 3rd string PG

IQ was not a true PG. He was a shoot first wing. So do not think we lose much.
If Thibs wanted someone to run an offense like a traditional PG, he would have let Deuce be part of a 10 man rotation.

With Grimes, DDV and Hart in the second unit, there are several options to bring ball up.
Just feel that Grimes has a better chance of developing the things he is missing on the second unit.
(Aggressiveness, shot creation, dribble. Basketball IQ.)

BTW, I don’t know how you can make that statement. Deuce has zero clue on how to make a shot or run an effective NBA team as as a backup PG, like none so far. Maybe he was able to do those things in college but nothing has translated to the NBA except his defense, and that’s one reason you see why IQ play backup PG minutes.

As many of my negative posts about Deuce have demonstrated, the comment was less about Deuce and more about what Thibs needs on the second unit. Which is a creating,.offensive minded, aggressive guard. However, you put Grimes on the second unit, and maybe Deuce getting him the ball has some value.
Although, as you know, my preference would be Grimes in IQs role on second unit with IQ starting. Will give Grimes a chance to work on what he has yet to excel in. And give the first unit another player who can create off the catch. Deuce can play in China in that scenario. Nice kid though.

You just described IQ.

Obvious that is IQ. Which is why I said Thibs has him there. But you are forgetting that there is also a need for that type of player at the starting SG position. We both just agreed IQ is ALREADY that.

Secondly, as mentioned before, also believe that Grimes needs to learn how to be that. And that the best place to do so is in second unit where it will be required of him. Hope is that Grimes on second unit may do what it did for IQ.

Still don't understand the notion this is such a silly idea. Especially since we saw exactly what I'm describing happen so many times last year. But mostly when it really counted. Which was at the end of games. So apparently Thibs also sees the better fit.

A lot of players could be in a better position off the bench to learn stuff. Grimes is one, so is IQ as a PG. Grimes is also learning a lot by starting, like being the prime man defender on the other teams best player; it also helps the team win games, which is also very important.

For instance, we all want Mitch to be a better offensive player. But no one is suggesting he should come off the bench to practice that with the second unit. Because there are pros and cons to doing this.

RJ could come off the bench to practice his shooting and rim drives with finishes against second units. But there are tradeoffs in doing this too.

Mitch, Grimes and RJ could all come off the bench to improve their games. But no way in hell any sound coach does this.

IMHO it's silly to suggest. Mainly, cause it'll never happen for a lot of other really good reasons.

Grimes can learn the things you are asking him by starting too. And he will.

So Grimes should be given the starting nod despite, as you said it, being the player that needs to learn more? Despite IQ being the player that as we both said, is already that?

Absolutely not.

I’ve listed off a myriad of reasons why I think Grimes should and will start over IQ, having both to do with team dynamics and individuals ones, and really none have to do with what you are suggesting there.

You are hyper focused on exactly one aspect regarding both players while continuing to ignore a lot of other good things going on.

If Grimes continues to miss 3pt shots, he will be moved to the second unit. And possibly to another tram. I am for rewarding guys that are already proven to be solid consistent contributors. Right now, IQ has proven that and Grimes is still just a hopeful.

Remind me when and where the “Grimes continues to miss 3pt shots” comes from (he shot better or same as IQ from 3). And then explain to me how what you wrote can’t be said of literally every player in the league? You know, if you only take the most pessimistic and purely hypothetical path for a player. Not for nothing but you just described RJ.

By all accounts, I’d expect a big jump from Grimes this year. And this is just not a novel idea from me, tons of NBA types think the same.

IQ has a great role for himself and the Knicks right now. He was soooooo good in that role, he was voted the second best at it in the league. You want to change that.

Lets phrase that more emphatically for you: you want to take something that has been great for a player and the team and change it up.

One of IQ’s strength is that he is a combo guard and great at team D, that literally fits him and the team at the same time in the role that he has, cause he is more versatile, and that’s a great thing, not a knock.

He is still learning the PG aspect of things and getting better at that, so why not continue that good path for him, off the bench where you have suggested he will get good minutes against the second units (see what I did right there, because if it’s good for the goose… and good for the team)? IQ def deserves starter money, even as 6th man IMO.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/KnicksMuse/status/1711831329313075651?t=c1B5YtztdHAezRSaKUD3aA&s=19

Click here to view the Tweet