Knicks · The Two star approach vs. the 3 starphuch…. (page 1)
There is a lot to this as teams will be letting players walk. HItting draft picks is essential, especially in lower rounds.
Looky at were we are. We a good team, deep, have good inventory of picks, and reasonable contracts. Fans and media call for “a star” but Leon has yet to dive in to get bloated salary guys like Dame, Beal, or even Donovan Mitchell instead opting for a balanced attack.
Looks like early issues with knicks might have been contributed to what I was saying early about Thibs trying to move the ball more and it messing up Randle and Brunson. Thibs is not stubborn, he is patient and we are seeing early results. StarJay is hitting his THrees and that is making it look good thus far.
Now over .500 calls for the “Star” have dropped. Randle is not a bum, he was still hurting and passing. The turnovers bring back some bad memories. I get it. Knicks are not clicking on all cylinders yet but the homestead was encouraging.
Are we entering a new era of team construction? Brooklyn was able to retreat and get a good haul for its “DeStarhuching”, and Rockets injecting Vet leadership to a young team looks impressive. They felt it was better to pay FVV that crazy money than Harden. Toronto has depth but its not clicking there. They have three really good players in barnes, Siakim and OG. Whats wrong?
Knicks? Depth and balance. Looking pretty good right now.
Its way too early but Suns and Clippers are not looking good. Everyone is talking about Minny now . Two stars and depth. Rudy is very expensive and I have read any moves might be more financial going forward but they might be better off with depth as well. Edwards is doing so scary things now. Next level shit. Not consistant but if he does he will be big time.
Leon might ahead of the curve on somethings. Not to say others are not “getting it” as well.
Parity rules the league not and really makes for interesting season. A team like the knicks can go very far.
But success is determined by the type of star players we have and the coaching system they play in.
I’ve never been a fan of Thibs offensive system, even though he’s not afraid to shift and adjust which was a positive surprise for me. I guess old dogs can indeed learn new tricks. Seems like every time I call out Thibs and his offense / player management he proves me wrong.
We simply don’t have enough players who can create their own shot yet we tend to be iso heavy. That’s a bad mix to be ISO heavy yet weak on ISO players. So regardless if we have 2 or 3 stars, we need the right kind of stars.
Boston for example, their top two guys are two way players who can get their own shot. Our top two guys are not 2 way and only Brunson can reliably get his own shot. RJ is trending up fast (just needs to be consistent) and Randle is still recovering but career wise he’s inefficient as an iso (eye test no stats to back this up).
But in general 2 or 3 star success is based on the players and system. I believe both strategies work fine but I like the 2 star approach personally.
KnickDanger wrote:Look at the Clips and their “4 Star” roster. So glad the FO has resisted pressure from the gasbags and bing bongers.
Just because a player was a star doesn’t mean he is for his entire career. Westbrook hasn’t been a star in years. Harden has fallen off I think. So you have 2 stars and 2 former stars. The issue is the former stars getting current star treatment. Otherwise westbrook wouldn’t be starting and harden wouldn’t have landed with the clippers. The league changes fast. Guys like Maxey and Haliburton have replaced guys like Westbrook and harden as stars of the league. It comes down to not everyone is lebron or KD or Steph and can remain a star in his mid 30s.
Until Knicks can hang with Boston Philly and Milwaukee, they are still a second tier team.
gradyandrew wrote:Two best teams are Nuggets and Boston, each with 4 guys who fit the "starsp" criteria in Jokic, Murray, Gordon, and Porter Jr. and Tatum, KP, Brown, and Holiday. Gordon has a below max contract but I think that has more to do with him valuing winning over the big contract dollars.You could compare Gordon to Jerami Grant as an example for the winning team tax.Until Knicks can hang with Boston Philly and Milwaukee, they are still a second tier team.
One solid WING who can create their own shot and play defense. But we are very close. RJ is a star on the rise. So technically adding a star wing would give us 3 stars and a possible (RJ).
Mitch 189 WS48, 0.9 Box plus minus, 135Ortg-105Drtg 54.5 TS% Surprisingly low for his standards.
IQ 185 WS48 , 4.3 Box plus minus, 125Ortg-112Drtg 59.6 TS%
RJ 173 WS48, 4.6 Box plus minus, 121Ortg-113Drtg 62.0 TS%
These type of contributions around your featured offensive players are top tier. IQ is such a critical piece due to him being able to start or come off the bench. Support other featured players or be featured himself. Play defense, space the floor, create offense. Produce relatively consistently. Main question is his playoff performances have been terrible. RJ playing the way he has is heaven sent.
While Hartenstein is very likable. We need a big behind Mitch that can stretch the floor. Hit FTs at a good rate to balance Mitch offensive shortcomings. Open the paint more for Randle.
VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.
the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it
And yes, just against the elite teams.
IQ was key last night in his role once he settled down. I don’t agree with some that think he should be starting over grimes. Two different types of players bringing different things to the table. He can fill in for Brunson to start and I don’t diminish his value as a knick.
Grimes is Inconsistant. But he shows that promise as a catch and shoot player. Its a rare and valuable skill if he can get it to the next level.
Last night I think he jammed his non shooting hand on the body, not reaching in. Could be sprain? Hope not worse. I’d expect Evan to step in and start actually. Unless hot, IQ will finish or RJ with JHart on the wing. We saw that last year. Be good if Evan can get a chance and perhaps traded. I’d expect to knicks to do right by him and release him if an when no trade is apparently going to happen.
In a month free agents can be traded. Perhaps knicks do something even if its not earth shattering.
Nalod wrote:Last night Randle told iQ to be himself? He came out firing after a cold streak. IQ has limitations to this game and seems he struggles when creating. He starts dancing and forcing. When he gets the ball he does much better. Its why he is great off the bench and is so valuable there. I understand he wants to start and get starters money. I don’t faulting him if thats what he is going for. Knicks can match. That 4 year 85mil number thrown around might be accurate for him.IQ was key in winning last night in Barretts absence. He can fill in for Brunson to start and I don’t diminish his value as a knick, but at the same time his game is differeent than grimes and what was trying to get from him.
Grimes is Inconsistant. But he shows that promise as a catch and shoot. Seems he jammed his non shooting hand on the body last night not reaching in. Could be sprain? Hope not worse. I’d expect Evan to step in and start actually. Unless hot, IQ will finish or RJ with JHart on the wing. We saw that last year. Be good if Evan can get a chance and perhaps traded. I’d expect to knicks to do right by him and release him if an when no trade is apparently going to happen.
In a month free agents can be traded. Perhaps knicks do something even if its not earth shattering.
my thoughts exactly
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it
And yes, just against the elite teams.
Lavine or DM is what this team needs, but Lavine probably costs less.
If we were talking about this squad around Brunson and Durant or Booker or even D-Mitchell I agree but putting faith in Randle (NOT ME) - regardless of how many good/great regular season games he puts up.
I do hate the star chasing so not sure where that leaves me.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it
And yes, just against the elite teams.
Lavine or DM is what this team needs, but Lavine probably costs less.
I hear your reasoning and think the Knicks would wait a year or until this summer for DM chatter to pick up again. Just too many vibes with that guy.
Lavine has flat put out there that he does not want Knicks. Clutch dude too.
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it
And yes, just against the elite teams.
To be fair we have asked our guards to create while having possibly one of the worst spacing frontcourts in the NBA.
blkexec wrote:gradyandrew wrote:Two best teams are Nuggets and Boston, each with 4 guys who fit the "starsp" criteria in Jokic, Murray, Gordon, and Porter Jr. and Tatum, KP, Brown, and Holiday. Gordon has a below max contract but I think that has more to do with him valuing winning over the big contract dollars.You could compare Gordon to Jerami Grant as an example for the winning team tax.Until Knicks can hang with Boston Philly and Milwaukee, they are still a second tier team.
One solid WING who can create their own shot and play defense. But we are very close. RJ is a star on the rise. So technically adding a star wing would give us 3 stars and a possible (RJ).
Yes - something like this —- like how would our roster feel like with J- McDaniels in our rotation.
newyorknewyork wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it
And yes, just against the elite teams.
To be fair we have asked our guards to create while having possibly one of the worst spacing frontcourts in the NBA.
You are not wrong.
nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:VDesai wrote:If Randle/Brunson shooting % normalize and RJ sustains or even experiences a slight drop off, we have the potential for 3 "stars," with terrific depth. Not sure what makes a star these days, but all 3 guys should be able to average 20ppg - and if they can do so at 45% FG% and around 36%+ from 3 we are in good shape. Especially if Randle tosses in 9-10 rpg 4-5 apg and Brunson 6-7 apg.the issue is do we trust Randle and RJ to be "stars" come playoff time?
RJ showed great potential last season so I trust him to be good, but he's not a great shot creator under pressure.
I think we still lack a 2nd elite scorer and shooting. I think that's where a guy like Lavine could really help.
To be fair, I don't think the Knicks have 1 ball handler that I would really trust under pressure. IQ, Brunson are not at that level.
Teams like Miami and Boston are always going to give Knicks fits because of that IMO
i mean those are great defensive teams, they are going to give most teams fits.
but I think we beat MIA last year if we had a guy like Lavine. it was scoring and shooting more than forced TO's that really hurt us against MIA.
haha you just backdoor'ed your Lavine trade. love it
And yes, just against the elite teams.
Lavine or DM is what this team needs, but Lavine probably costs less.
Have had my eye in LaVine for some time because like the body type and scoring efficiency with potential to put up 4pm in big game BUT at same time his play style is a bit soft defensively and something seems just a bit missing.