GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
It was 3 on 5 on offense, before the trade. With OG, DDV, and iHart starting. Its 5 on 5. Everybody is chipping in. That "free flowing offense"? You're looking at it.
Ihart has nothing to do with the trade though, he was starting before the trade as well with Mitch out.
you could say it was 4 on 5, but 3 on 5? RJ was huge in many games for us.
Also Mitch isn't a 0 on offense at all, he creates alot of vertical spacing and 2nd possessions and we value that greatly.
My point is that you are talking about RJ leaving for the type of offense, you are now seeing in NY in part because he is gone. RJ is a head down, bully ball scorer, which doesnt fit with two ball domimant players like JB and Randle. It meant few looks for the SG and Center. Look at how DDV's game emerged as soon as RJ was gone. iHart is getting more touches as well because OG and DDV play better off the ball, and are more willing passers.
RJ's game took a big leap, when he learned how to get to the rim from different angles, and use the glass. But it wasnt enough to paper over the fact that it was a bad fit. We lost a 20pt game scorer, and got back a defensive catalyst, who doesnt need the ball as much as RJ. Which allows more starters to chip in.
We are beating teams with lousy bench production, for thw most part. The starting lineup is fine. The bench is now job one.
our offensive rating has been roughly the same with OG, 119 vs 118. But again SOS is a huge factor there. I don't see our offense as better at all right now. Alot was made of RJ not fitting but our starting lineup with those 3 was pretty damn good even if not ideal.
our defense has made a huge leap no doubt.
Stopping 5 guys is a lot harder than stopping 3. In the playoffs, thats a recipe for an early exit.
DDV and iHart are playing better since RJ left. Because he was a ball dominant player who didnt leave enough touches for the other two. Ball movement is better, we rocketed to one of the best defenses in the league. We're less predictable. The only real downside is not having IQ's bench production.
DDV and Ihart have been great all year, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. if anything DDV's shooting has gone down substantially since the trade, but really he's still been good.
I agree stopping 5 is harder than 3, teams don't have to "stop" OG like they did RJ & IQ, that's exactly my point. RJ was arguably our 2nd best player in the playoffs last year.
nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
It was 3 on 5 on offense, before the trade. With OG, DDV, and iHart starting. Its 5 on 5. Everybody is chipping in. That "free flowing offense"? You're looking at it.
Ihart has nothing to do with the trade though, he was starting before the trade as well with Mitch out.
you could say it was 4 on 5, but 3 on 5? RJ was huge in many games for us.
Also Mitch isn't a 0 on offense at all, he creates alot of vertical spacing and 2nd possessions and we value that greatly.
My point is that you are talking about RJ leaving for the type of offense, you are now seeing in NY in part because he is gone. RJ is a head down, bully ball scorer, which doesnt fit with two ball domimant players like JB and Randle. It meant few looks for the SG and Center. Look at how DDV's game emerged as soon as RJ was gone. iHart is getting more touches as well because OG and DDV play better off the ball, and are more willing passers.
RJ's game took a big leap, when he learned how to get to the rim from different angles, and use the glass. But it wasnt enough to paper over the fact that it was a bad fit. We lost a 20pt game scorer, and got back a defensive catalyst, who doesnt need the ball as much as RJ. Which allows more starters to chip in.
We are beating teams with lousy bench production, for thw most part. The starting lineup is fine. The bench is now job one.
our offensive rating has been roughly the same with OG, 119 vs 118. But again SOS is a huge factor there. I don't see our offense as better at all right now. Alot was made of RJ not fitting but our starting lineup with those 3 was pretty damn good even if not ideal.
our defense has made a huge leap no doubt.
Stopping 5 guys is a lot harder than stopping 3. In the playoffs, thats a recipe for an early exit.
DDV and iHart are playing better since RJ left. Because he was a ball dominant player who didnt leave enough touches for the other two. Ball movement is better, we rocketed to one of the best defenses in the league. We're less predictable. The only real downside is not having IQ's bench production.
DDV and Ihart have been great all year, I really don't know what you're trying to get at. if anything DDV's shooting has gone down substantially since the trade, but really he's still been good.
I agree stopping 5 is harder than 3, teams don't have to "stop" OG like they did RJ & IQ, that's exactly my point. RJ was arguably our 2nd best player in the playoffs last year.
They werent playing this well, thats what Im getting at. Eye test.
RJ was our second best player in the playoffs, because Randle was hurt, needed surgery.
Not enough of a contribution outside of pts. We needed a player who scored less, but contributed in other depts. Thats what OG does. As soon as we have our 6th man, whatever drawbacks to RJ being traded will be gone.
nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.
Depends on how much Cle values draft picks. Also, Knicks could be making trades now so they could help facilitate the DM trade later. Get more bodies here since we can't just trade them draft picks.
nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.
are we being serious? OG is a role player? What is the role? Defend the best player, help the Knicks win every game, play 40 minutes and elevate the team from first round fight to conference finals contender? I love OG's
role!
Just wait till you see how this role player gets paid.. 
fishmike wrote:nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.
are we being serious? OG is a role player? What is the role? Defend the best player, help the Knicks win every game, play 40 minutes and elevate the team from first round fight to conference finals contender? I love OG's role!Just wait till you see how this role player gets paid..
OG isn't a role player, he's a "star"... in his role.
nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
It was 3 on 5 on offense, before the trade. With OG, DDV, and iHart starting. Its 5 on 5. Everybody is chipping in. That "free flowing offense"? You're looking at it.
Ihart has nothing to do with the trade though, he was starting before the trade as well with Mitch out.
you could say it was 4 on 5, but 3 on 5? RJ was huge in many games for us.
Also Mitch isn't a 0 on offense at all, he creates alot of vertical spacing and 2nd possessions and we value that greatly.
My point is that you are talking about RJ leaving for the type of offense, you are now seeing in NY in part because he is gone. RJ is a head down, bully ball scorer, which doesnt fit with two ball domimant players like JB and Randle. It meant few looks for the SG and Center. Look at how DDV's game emerged as soon as RJ was gone. iHart is getting more touches as well because OG and DDV play better off the ball, and are more willing passers.
RJ's game took a big leap, when he learned how to get to the rim from different angles, and use the glass. But it wasnt enough to paper over the fact that it was a bad fit. We lost a 20pt game scorer, and got back a defensive catalyst, who doesnt need the ball as much as RJ. Which allows more starters to chip in.
We are beating teams with lousy bench production, for thw most part. The starting lineup is fine. The bench is now job one.
our offensive rating has been roughly the same with OG, 119 vs 118. But again SOS is a huge factor there. I don't see our offense as better at all right now. Alot was made of RJ not fitting but our starting lineup with those 3 was pretty damn good even if not ideal.
our defense has made a huge leap no doubt.
Our offense is built for sustainable success now though. Our offense last year and to some degree earlier this year was not built for success. It was largely a gimmick that relied far too heavily on offensive rebounding and ball control and did not have good passing, spacing or shooting.
We need a little more scoring talent no doubt. Not a lot though just a minor tweak that won't be hard to get.
nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.
Maybe, but it's possible RJ and IQ on big long term contracts weren't that appealing to most teams to begin with.
nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.
If you looked at all 450 players that play in the NBA. How many of them do you think provide what OG provides? How many provide what RJ provides? How many provide what IQ provides?
We also already have a DM in JB. Who teams have eliminated him in the playoffs 2 years in a row.
OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
It was 3 on 5 on offense, before the trade. With OG, DDV, and iHart starting. Its 5 on 5. Everybody is chipping in. That "free flowing offense"? You're looking at it.
Ihart has nothing to do with the trade though, he was starting before the trade as well with Mitch out.
you could say it was 4 on 5, but 3 on 5? RJ was huge in many games for us.
Also Mitch isn't a 0 on offense at all, he creates alot of vertical spacing and 2nd possessions and we value that greatly.
My point is that you are talking about RJ leaving for the type of offense, you are now seeing in NY in part because he is gone. RJ is a head down, bully ball scorer, which doesnt fit with two ball domimant players like JB and Randle. It meant few looks for the SG and Center. Look at how DDV's game emerged as soon as RJ was gone. iHart is getting more touches as well because OG and DDV play better off the ball, and are more willing passers.
RJ's game took a big leap, when he learned how to get to the rim from different angles, and use the glass. But it wasnt enough to paper over the fact that it was a bad fit. We lost a 20pt game scorer, and got back a defensive catalyst, who doesnt need the ball as much as RJ. Which allows more starters to chip in.
We are beating teams with lousy bench production, for thw most part. The starting lineup is fine. The bench is now job one.
our offensive rating has been roughly the same with OG, 119 vs 118. But again SOS is a huge factor there. I don't see our offense as better at all right now. Alot was made of RJ not fitting but our starting lineup with those 3 was pretty damn good even if not ideal.
our defense has made a huge leap no doubt.
Our offense is built for sustainable success now though. Our offense last year and to some degree earlier this year was not built for success. It was largely a gimmick that relied far too heavily on offensive rebounding and ball control and did not have good passing, spacing or shooting.
We need a little more scoring talent no doubt. Not a lot though just a minor tweak that won't be hard to get.
I disagree with that, we have very little redundancy outside of Brunson/Randle now. If one of those guys is even having an off night it puts the entire load on the other.
I don't think this trade changes our offense much IF we are healthy, we had a good offensive team either way. but it goes put more on Brunson and I think his load was already too high. It changes our defense big time.
DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:RJ & IQ were the two big chips we had for a star trade like DM. we used them on a role player instead, it's going to be hard to put together a package for a legit star now. DJM might be as close as we can get.
Maybe, but it's possible RJ and IQ on big long term contracts weren't that appealing to most teams to begin with.
reports are Knicks tried to include two firsts instead of IQ but TOR wanted IQ... So I think those two together were worth 3 1sts min.
nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
Why should we care about this? He's a hard to find and obtain piece you need if u have championship aspirations.
Not to mention. A lot of these players we covet were had through the draft. Jazz were a playoff team that traded up from #24 to draft Spida at #13.
We don't have to always rely on "starphuching" to land the star.
newyorknewyork wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
Why should we care about this? He's a hard to find and obtain piece you need if u have championship aspirations.
I dunno. Is he much different or worse than Klay Thompson? Is that just a function of how many shots he gets to take?
nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
this is such a bad take. This is why they have things like DPOY and ALL NBA teams. But seeing as how guys like Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler did have AS game appearances we can only hope OG lives up to it.
Role player... I guess OG isnt as good as I thought cause NBA fans wont be voting for him 
nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
This is really just semantics and labeling. His impact is all star worthy. But defense-first guys rarely make all star teams. And in the rare case they do it's usually because the team wins 60+ games and they decide to give them multiple all stars. OG is a championship caliber defensive starter. Is RJ or IQ a championship caliber offensive starter?
DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
This is really just semantics and labeling. His impact is all star worthy. But defense-first guys rarely make all star teams. And in the rare case they do it's usually because the team wins 60+ games and they decide to give them multiple all stars. OG is a championship caliber defensive starter. Is RJ or IQ a championship caliber offensive starter?
Guys like Draymond and Ben Wallace were on title caliber teams or champs. Tyson Chandler was AS once as well (was he voted in???)
When the Knicks are in the finals a few times the rest of the world will take note. Time will tell.
EwingsGlass wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
Why should we care about this? He's a hard to find and obtain piece you need if u have championship aspirations.
I dunno. Is he much different or worse than Klay Thompson? Is that just a function of how many shots he gets to take?
Well apparently a dude can be the catalyst for making everyone one on the team better defensively by covering so much ground. And transform the defense from below average to one of the best in the NBA. But since he's not getting buckets at 20 or more a game...
In the end it comes down to how many wins do you add to your team.
DLeethal wrote:nycericanguy wrote:OG is a role player, he's an elite role player, but he's not a star, he's never going to come close to making an all star team. That's not a knock on him.
This is really just semantics and labeling. His impact is all star worthy. But defense-first guys rarely make all star teams. And in the rare case they do it's usually because the team wins 60+ games and they decide to give them multiple all stars. OG is a championship caliber defensive starter. Is RJ or IQ a championship caliber offensive starter?
we'll see.
it's a quantity vs quality thing, but it's also a question of did we take ourselves out of the running for a superstar by trading for OG?
OG + DM was always something discussed here. but we used the two main DM trade pieces to get OG.
My entire points was this trade doesn't make sense without a follow up one. If we get DM or maybe even DJM then it could all come together.
nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.
Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
You and I usually agree on a lot of high level stuff, why RJ over Randle? I am on the opposite side of that
martin wrote:nycericanguy wrote:I still would have rather built around RJ & Brunson vs Randle.
Its been a great 10-2 stretch but i'm not so sure we don't have a similar stretch with this schedule anyway.
Still not a huge fan of the trade, i understand it, but RJ is showing what he can do in a more free flowing offense. Maybe he reverts, who knows, but he was a workhorse and a hard worker and he was huge in the 1st round against CLE.
We went from having FOUR dependable scorers/creators to just two, and we are too reliant on Brunson more than ever now. Ultimately unless there is a follow up move this team is really lacking a 3rd scorer/creator right now. So until then the trade doesn't make sense to me.
You and I usually agree on a lot of high level stuff, why RJ over Randle? I am on the opposite side of that
I don't trust Randle's mental... RJ at 22 last year already showed more poise under playoff pressure.
Randle is more talented. But RJ played very well WITH Brunson during the playoffs, where as alot of the time I feel like Randle and Brunson just take turns on offense. RJ was the main screener on the pick and roll at times and it worked beautifully.
People talk about spacing and RJ but Randle hasn't been a good shooter either.
I would have taken the 23 year old that isn't at times a mental headcase.
And we don't see RJ just completely take plays off on defense when he's not getting the whistle.
Either way I don't think either RJ or Randle were going to be top dogs to win a chip with, I think we need that DM type player either way, but RJ I think is a better supporting piece.
