Knicks · Knicks Depth Chart vs Sixers and Celts (page 2)
MS wrote:Precious doesn’t get enough credit.He played great and his defense was really solid and he is only 26.
Still have no ideas why Thibs froze him out of the playoff rotation.
Boston is going to have Horford playing major minutes all year long. Have to love our chances.
This was my thought also. It’s possible I missed something, but he seemed to be a player I thought Thibs would love from the moment he dove through some Pacer’s legs to get a loose ball back in January. I actually thought he was the better matchup on Siakam.
MS wrote:Precious doesn’t get enough credit.He played great and his defense was really solid and he is only 26.
Still have no ideas why Thibs froze him out of the playoff rotation.
Boston is going to have Horford playing major minutes all year long. Have to love our chances.
Cause his offense was bad, hopefully Precious picks up his offensive capability to shoot well enough to keep the defense honest. I like Precious too, he is a hustle player and very switchable defender. In the off-season videos he has been working on his shooting, if he can hit from the corner and in midrange then he won't be a liability but a valuable piece in the playoffs
Three is a reason Toronto gave up on him. His offense is erratic at best. His handle was lose, and he was delusional at times trying to get paid.
Thibs reeled him in and played to his strenght. I thought he got a very good one year deal from us, Multi year the offers were not there or he is betting on himself.
Im not hating on him, but some of us got a bit enthralled by him and his value.
Why did Thibs reduce his time? We really second guessing Thibs at this point?
Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?
Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
With only Mitch as a trusted C, I think you may understate the possible usage of OG. I wholeheartedly agree that OG should be defending the best 3-4-5 and we have the luxury of using Bridges on the best 1-2-3.
For example, Celts, I think you can go small ball and put Randle on KP or Horford since they stand 27 feet from the hoop. OG gets Tatum. Bridges gets Brown. Brunson and either Hart or DDV get White and Holiday. On offense, you pull Randle out of the paint and hope he can outrun KP.
Philly is harder. I think you need Mitch on Embiid, OG on George and Bridges on Maxey. In this scenario, I think you want Bridges being the primary to make Maxey work on defense.
The beauty here is the amount of flexibility you have with both Bridges and OG. You have absolute lock down defense on two positions without giving up efficiency on offense.
I still want a legit backup C to replace iHart, but I don’t think the need is as drastic if the core team is healthy.
EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
With only Mitch as a trusted C, I think you may understate the possible usage of OG. I wholeheartedly agree that OG should be defending the best 3-4-5 and we have the luxury of using Bridges on the best 1-2-3.
For example, Celts, I think you can go small ball and put Randle on KP or Horford since they stand 27 feet from the hoop. OG gets Tatum. Bridges gets Brown. Brunson and either Hart or DDV get White and Holiday. On offense, you pull Randle out of the paint and hope he can outrun KP.
Philly is harder. I think you need Mitch on Embiid, OG on George and Bridges on Maxey. In this scenario, I think you want Bridges being the primary to make Maxey work on defense.
The beauty here is the amount of flexibility you have with both Bridges and OG. You have absolute lock down defense on two positions without giving up efficiency on offense.
I still want a legit backup C to replace iHart, but I don’t think the need is as drastic if the core team is healthy.
Oh no, I know OH is a beast. He did a hell of a job on Embiid in the clutch in the playoffs. But I think the whole point of using OG in the lineup is to create mismatches and I don't think much changes on the opposing side of it's OG and Randle. The opposing coach will likely just put his big on Randle and put a smaller wing on OG to counter his three point threat. I think OG at center works out you go real small, say Bridges and Hart at the forward spots and Donte at guard alongside Brunson. In that scenario, you force the opposing team to adjust. You can't leave in a traditional center because they would be forced to guard OG or Josh. I mean, you'd still force a mismatch with Randle against most traditional bigs, but wouldn't you just say that Randle is the "center" in that lineup?
Philc1 wrote:Thibs likes rim protecting centers. He will use Randle as a 5 occasionally but not full-time.
BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
With only Mitch as a trusted C, I think you may understate the possible usage of OG. I wholeheartedly agree that OG should be defending the best 3-4-5 and we have the luxury of using Bridges on the best 1-2-3.
For example, Celts, I think you can go small ball and put Randle on KP or Horford since they stand 27 feet from the hoop. OG gets Tatum. Bridges gets Brown. Brunson and either Hart or DDV get White and Holiday. On offense, you pull Randle out of the paint and hope he can outrun KP.
Philly is harder. I think you need Mitch on Embiid, OG on George and Bridges on Maxey. In this scenario, I think you want Bridges being the primary to make Maxey work on defense.
The beauty here is the amount of flexibility you have with both Bridges and OG. You have absolute lock down defense on two positions without giving up efficiency on offense.
I still want a legit backup C to replace iHart, but I don’t think the need is as drastic if the core team is healthy.
Oh no, I know OH is a beast. He did a hell of a job on Embiid in the clutch in the playoffs. But I think the whole point of using OG in the lineup is to create mismatches and I don't think much changes on the opposing side of it's OG and Randle. The opposing coach will likely just put his big on Randle and put a smaller wing on OG to counter his three point threat. I think OG at center works out you go real small, say Bridges and Hart at the forward spots and Donte at guard alongside Brunson. In that scenario, you force the opposing team to adjust. You can't leave in a traditional center because they would be forced to guard OG or Josh. I mean, you'd still force a mismatch with Randle against most traditional bigs, but wouldn't you just say that Randle is the "center" in that lineup?
In a death lineup with a motion offense, not sure I care how any opposing team tries to defend the Knicks. You have two elite mid range players in Brunson and Bridges. Elite corner 3s in Randle and OG. DDV or Hart as 3point or cutter depending on your needs. Let them put a center on OG or Randle in either corner (or Both), Brunson will have an open box or DDV will have an open 3, or Bridges will have an open path the hoop. Ball movement will need to resist Randle’s gravitational force, but that lineup when clicking will be hard to defend.
It’s only on defense that I think they may struggle with big offensive centers like Embiid and Jokic.
EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
With only Mitch as a trusted C, I think you may understate the possible usage of OG. I wholeheartedly agree that OG should be defending the best 3-4-5 and we have the luxury of using Bridges on the best 1-2-3.
For example, Celts, I think you can go small ball and put Randle on KP or Horford since they stand 27 feet from the hoop. OG gets Tatum. Bridges gets Brown. Brunson and either Hart or DDV get White and Holiday. On offense, you pull Randle out of the paint and hope he can outrun KP.
Philly is harder. I think you need Mitch on Embiid, OG on George and Bridges on Maxey. In this scenario, I think you want Bridges being the primary to make Maxey work on defense.
The beauty here is the amount of flexibility you have with both Bridges and OG. You have absolute lock down defense on two positions without giving up efficiency on offense.
I still want a legit backup C to replace iHart, but I don’t think the need is as drastic if the core team is healthy.
Oh no, I know OH is a beast. He did a hell of a job on Embiid in the clutch in the playoffs. But I think the whole point of using OG in the lineup is to create mismatches and I don't think much changes on the opposing side of it's OG and Randle. The opposing coach will likely just put his big on Randle and put a smaller wing on OG to counter his three point threat. I think OG at center works out you go real small, say Bridges and Hart at the forward spots and Donte at guard alongside Brunson. In that scenario, you force the opposing team to adjust. You can't leave in a traditional center because they would be forced to guard OG or Josh. I mean, you'd still force a mismatch with Randle against most traditional bigs, but wouldn't you just say that Randle is the "center" in that lineup?
In a death lineup with a motion offense, not sure I care how any opposing team tries to defend the Knicks. You have two elite mid range players in Brunson and Bridges. Elite corner 3s in Randle and OG. DDV or Hart as 3point or cutter depending on your needs. Let them put a center on OG or Randle in either corner (or Both), Brunson will have an open box or DDV will have an open 3, or Bridges will have an open path the hoop. Ball movement will need to resist Randle’s gravitational force, but that lineup when clicking will be hard to defend.
It’s only on defense that I think they may struggle with big offensive centers like Embiid and Jokic.
its important if Mitch not out there we still get our share of offensive rebounds. Granted, if we shoot well enough, there are less of those too!
Issue is if Mitch is not able to play 60 games.
EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
With only Mitch as a trusted C, I think you may understate the possible usage of OG. I wholeheartedly agree that OG should be defending the best 3-4-5 and we have the luxury of using Bridges on the best 1-2-3.
For example, Celts, I think you can go small ball and put Randle on KP or Horford since they stand 27 feet from the hoop. OG gets Tatum. Bridges gets Brown. Brunson and either Hart or DDV get White and Holiday. On offense, you pull Randle out of the paint and hope he can outrun KP.
Philly is harder. I think you need Mitch on Embiid, OG on George and Bridges on Maxey. In this scenario, I think you want Bridges being the primary to make Maxey work on defense.
The beauty here is the amount of flexibility you have with both Bridges and OG. You have absolute lock down defense on two positions without giving up efficiency on offense.
I still want a legit backup C to replace iHart, but I don’t think the need is as drastic if the core team is healthy.
Oh no, I know OH is a beast. He did a hell of a job on Embiid in the clutch in the playoffs. But I think the whole point of using OG in the lineup is to create mismatches and I don't think much changes on the opposing side of it's OG and Randle. The opposing coach will likely just put his big on Randle and put a smaller wing on OG to counter his three point threat. I think OG at center works out you go real small, say Bridges and Hart at the forward spots and Donte at guard alongside Brunson. In that scenario, you force the opposing team to adjust. You can't leave in a traditional center because they would be forced to guard OG or Josh. I mean, you'd still force a mismatch with Randle against most traditional bigs, but wouldn't you just say that Randle is the "center" in that lineup?
In a death lineup with a motion offense, not sure I care how any opposing team tries to defend the Knicks. You have two elite mid range players in Brunson and Bridges. Elite corner 3s in Randle and OG. DDV or Hart as 3point or cutter depending on your needs. Let them put a center on OG or Randle in either corner (or Both), Brunson will have an open box or DDV will have an open 3, or Bridges will have an open path the hoop. Ball movement will need to resist Randle’s gravitational force, but that lineup when clicking will be hard to defend.
It’s only on defense that I think they may struggle with big offensive centers like Embiid and Jokic.
I'm not sure a death lineup with Randle offers a whole lot of offensive efficiency, at least early on. I could see a motion offense with with Bridges, OG, Donte, Hart and JB thriving almost immediately because of an already built in chemistry. That lineup does give up size, but the whole point of it is to make coaches make adjustments outside of their team's comfort zones. The Villanova guys already have a good idea of what to do and OG is a good instinctual cutter. But Thibs needs to install such an offense and other players need to get adjusted. Not saying Randle can't adjust, but I think he needs time. We'll see. My point is Randle would wind up the defacto center in that lineup. He would be the guy targeted as the inside threat and he probably starts off at the high post in most sets. Also, we all know Randle's ups and downs from three. Can't say it's a given he starts knocking them down coming off of injury.
BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Alpha1971 wrote:Curious if Mitch doesn't start the season if the Knicks would do this line up OG, Randall, Josh Hart ( to have a wing defender with OG playing the 5 ) Bridges and Brunson. Bench of Deuce, Dante, Precious with either Simms, Payne, Kolek or Diop. Who would be the situational player used for 9 man ?Not sure OG works as a 5 in that lineup in most cases. You want OG defending the best offensive player and more often times than not, it won't be the opposing team's 5. Second, the opposing coach is probably going to stick their 5 on Randle anyway, since he's not as much of a cutter and not nearly as consistent from 3 as OG. Also, as Phil noted, Thibs has notoriously been a stickler for rim protection. Not saying we won't ever see that lineup configuration, but more as a break in case of emergency measure.
With only Mitch as a trusted C, I think you may understate the possible usage of OG. I wholeheartedly agree that OG should be defending the best 3-4-5 and we have the luxury of using Bridges on the best 1-2-3.
For example, Celts, I think you can go small ball and put Randle on KP or Horford since they stand 27 feet from the hoop. OG gets Tatum. Bridges gets Brown. Brunson and either Hart or DDV get White and Holiday. On offense, you pull Randle out of the paint and hope he can outrun KP.
Philly is harder. I think you need Mitch on Embiid, OG on George and Bridges on Maxey. In this scenario, I think you want Bridges being the primary to make Maxey work on defense.
The beauty here is the amount of flexibility you have with both Bridges and OG. You have absolute lock down defense on two positions without giving up efficiency on offense.
I still want a legit backup C to replace iHart, but I don’t think the need is as drastic if the core team is healthy.
Oh no, I know OH is a beast. He did a hell of a job on Embiid in the clutch in the playoffs. But I think the whole point of using OG in the lineup is to create mismatches and I don't think much changes on the opposing side of it's OG and Randle. The opposing coach will likely just put his big on Randle and put a smaller wing on OG to counter his three point threat. I think OG at center works out you go real small, say Bridges and Hart at the forward spots and Donte at guard alongside Brunson. In that scenario, you force the opposing team to adjust. You can't leave in a traditional center because they would be forced to guard OG or Josh. I mean, you'd still force a mismatch with Randle against most traditional bigs, but wouldn't you just say that Randle is the "center" in that lineup?
In a death lineup with a motion offense, not sure I care how any opposing team tries to defend the Knicks. You have two elite mid range players in Brunson and Bridges. Elite corner 3s in Randle and OG. DDV or Hart as 3point or cutter depending on your needs. Let them put a center on OG or Randle in either corner (or Both), Brunson will have an open box or DDV will have an open 3, or Bridges will have an open path the hoop. Ball movement will need to resist Randle’s gravitational force, but that lineup when clicking will be hard to defend.
It’s only on defense that I think they may struggle with big offensive centers like Embiid and Jokic.
I'm not sure a death lineup with Randle offers a whole lot of offensive efficiency, at least early on. I could see a motion offense with with Bridges, OG, Donte, Hart and JB thriving almost immediately because of an already built in chemistry. That lineup does give up size, but the whole point of it is to make coaches make adjustments outside of their team's comfort zones. The Villanova guys already have a good idea of what to do and OG is a good instinctual cutter. But Thibs needs to install such an offense and other players need to get adjusted. Not saying Randle can't adjust, but I think he needs time. We'll see. My point is Randle would wind up the defacto center in that lineup. He would be the guy targeted as the inside threat and he probably starts off at the high post in most sets. Also, we all know Randle's ups and downs from three. Can't say it's a given he starts knocking them down coming off of injury.
I’m hoping for the best with Randle being the 1 in the Wildcat 4-1 offense. His high turnover percentage could be a critical flaw, but without him, I think rebounding will suffer a bit more. Hart is an amazing small ball rebounder, but I envision Randle doing real work on the block in this version of the death lineup.