Knicks · Looking forward to next year (page 3)
Nalod wrote:Panos, you still looking forward to next year?
Oh, very much so, thanks for asking, dear Nalod!
Panos wrote:Nalod wrote:Panos, you still looking forward to next year?Oh, very much so, thanks for asking, dear Nalod!
The answer is still yes. I find this squad very dull. I don't think there's anyone untouchable on this roster. The best value on the team is Hart's contract, and I would be happy to keep him. We probably keep Brunson. Though I'd not cry if he was part of a fair deal to get an equally talented player that shares the ball more/better. If we can keep him healthy, hell, I'd keep Mitch, if he's happy in his current role.
Otherwise, I'd roll open the garage door and make a deal(s) this off-season to drastically change the character of this team.
As for OG/Bridges, I think they are totally overrated. Invisible most of the game. Even defensively. Need some dawgs in here. Get me one of the Thompson twins. Get me Dillon Brooks.
Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Great post...unfortunally I think we're stuck with Brunson for a while. Maybe Brown can get him to change some of his bad habits...hogging the ball,causing a stand around offence.
jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
ccch wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Great post...unfortunally I think we're stuck with Brunson for a while. Maybe Brown can get him to change some of his bad habits...hogging the ball,causing a stand around offence.
Saying we are stuck with a player who has led this team to the second round or better every year he’s been here. We don’t deserve Brunson.
martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Everyone has their own definition of a superstar. Over the previous 20 years prior to Brunson showing up, the Knicks were really bad. Since he arrived, the switch completely flipped and the Knicks are one of the most consistently great teams in the league. 50+ wins is a standard we could only dream about 5 years ago. That’s mostly Brunson. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect. I agree the goal moving forward is to add more shot creation around him. Moving him off the ball even more is doable given his catch-and-shoot ability. All of it is possible. Try not to over complicate it. This is a really good team, but also a slightly flawed roster. Both can be true. Brunson isn’t perfect, but he’s far from the blame.
BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Hard to argue with either the premise of the post or the tactics of it either.
Sub in Steph Curry's name. Does it still hold?
Knixkik wrote:BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Everyone has their own definition of a superstar. Over the previous 20 years prior to Brunson showing up, the Knicks were really bad. Since he arrived, the switch completely flipped and the Knicks are one of the most consistently great teams in the league. 50+ wins is a standard we could only dream about 5 years ago. That’s mostly Brunson. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect. I agree the goal moving forward is to add more shot creation around him. Moving him off the ball even more is doable given his catch-and-shoot ability. All of it is possible. Try not to over complicate it. This is a really good team, but also a slightly flawed roster. Both can be true. Brunson isn’t perfect, but he’s far from the blame.
No question Brunson (and Thibs) have helped us go from an afterthought franchise to relevant and now - very good! The question is can we build around Brunson in a way that allows us to compete for a championship or is it better to try to rebuild in a different way? The best case scenario is our coaches help Brunson stretch his passing and ball movement abilities so we can work with him. I'm just not sure how much he can stretch at this point in his career. Kind of the same argument some of us threw around with Randle and holding the ball (eventually we cut bait). If Brunson can't move the ball more it seems realistic that we will either need to acquire more players around thim that are above average defensively and also excellent with ball handling and passing. I just feel it's easier to fix one problem vs continuing to apply duct tape around the elephant in the room. SGA and other solid defensive players will most often reduce Brunson's offensive effectiveness (over a 7 game series) so we are set up to live and die with how "hot" Brunson's shooting is that game. He will have big games that bail us out occasionally and make us think it offsets the deficiencies but in a 7 game series vs Detroit, Spurs and Thunder - we are simply not good enough because of the Brunson focused offensive style we play. This doesn't even introduce the defensive problems we have w/Brunson but I'll leave that out as we have the same problems/limits with KAT.
jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Everyone has their own definition of a superstar. Over the previous 20 years prior to Brunson showing up, the Knicks were really bad. Since he arrived, the switch completely flipped and the Knicks are one of the most consistently great teams in the league. 50+ wins is a standard we could only dream about 5 years ago. That’s mostly Brunson. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect. I agree the goal moving forward is to add more shot creation around him. Moving him off the ball even more is doable given his catch-and-shoot ability. All of it is possible. Try not to over complicate it. This is a really good team, but also a slightly flawed roster. Both can be true. Brunson isn’t perfect, but he’s far from the blame.
No question Brunson (and Thibs) have helped us go from an afterthought franchise to relevant and now - very good! The question is can we build around Brunson in a way that allows us to compete for a championship or is it better to try to rebuild in a different way? The best case scenario is our coaches help Brunson stretch his passing and ball movement abilities so we can work with him. I'm just not sure how much he can stretch at this point in his career. Kind of the same argument some of us threw around with Randle and holding the ball (eventually we cut bait). If Brunson can't move the ball more it seems realistic that we will either need to acquire more players around thim that are above average defensively and also excellent with ball handling and passing. I just feel it's easier to fix one problem vs continuing to apply duct tape around the elephant in the room. SGA and other solid defensive players will most often reduce Brunson's offensive effectiveness (over a 7 game series) so we are set up to live and die with how "hot" Brunson's shooting is that game. He will have big games that bail us out occasionally and make us think it offsets the deficiencies but in a 7 game series vs Detroit, Spurs and Thunder - we are simply not good enough because of the Brunson focused offensive style we play. This doesn't even introduce the defensive problems we have w/Brunson but I'll leave that out as we have the same problems/limits with KAT.
Here is a simple hypothetical: If Mo Diawara was much better/more experienced, would that alleviate the starting lineup problems if he replaces Josh?
I think it would.
IMHO the Knicks look really good and also really bad this year, and it still has them at about the 5th best team in the league, give or take, definitely second tier after OKC/Detroit. When it's bad, it boils down to 1 main thing: Brunson having the ball in his hands too much. If you are able to alleviate Brunson's 1 weakness away, and while doing that make him a focused spacer/scorer and secondary ball handler, you actually help make him even more at the one thing he is already elite at, and that is scoring and shooting.
Imagine GSW without Green. Curry and Thompson would need to create more for their team with ball in hands, now imaging Hart on that team instead of Green. Knicks don't need a Draymond level player but they do need that role to be better for everyone else.
Unfortunately Mo is probably 2 years away from that. But Giannis is not.
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/iqfor3/status/2039505225485103280?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA
Click here to view the Tweet
martin wrote:BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Hard to argue with either the premise of the post or the tactics of it either.
Sub in Steph Curry's name. Does it still hold?
Steph + KAT would be incredible.
Steph is vastly different than Brunson.
IIRC, you may have inserted Steph into similar comps before and myself and someone else dissected why Steph is a terrible comp for Brunson. Therefore, I won't exert that effort again. If it wasn't you, I stand corrected, but it did come up before.
I'd go so far as to say Steph was the greatest player of his generation (and he's still pretty damn good)
jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Everyone has their own definition of a superstar. Over the previous 20 years prior to Brunson showing up, the Knicks were really bad. Since he arrived, the switch completely flipped and the Knicks are one of the most consistently great teams in the league. 50+ wins is a standard we could only dream about 5 years ago. That’s mostly Brunson. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect. I agree the goal moving forward is to add more shot creation around him. Moving him off the ball even more is doable given his catch-and-shoot ability. All of it is possible. Try not to over complicate it. This is a really good team, but also a slightly flawed roster. Both can be true. Brunson isn’t perfect, but he’s far from the blame.
No question Brunson (and Thibs) have helped us go from an afterthought franchise to relevant and now - very good! The question is can we build around Brunson in a way that allows us to compete for a championship or is it better to try to rebuild in a different way? The best case scenario is our coaches help Brunson stretch his passing and ball movement abilities so we can work with him. I'm just not sure how much he can stretch at this point in his career. Kind of the same argument some of us threw around with Randle and holding the ball (eventually we cut bait). If Brunson can't move the ball more it seems realistic that we will either need to acquire more players around thim that are above average defensively and also excellent with ball handling and passing. I just feel it's easier to fix one problem vs continuing to apply duct tape around the elephant in the room. SGA and other solid defensive players will most often reduce Brunson's offensive effectiveness (over a 7 game series) so we are set up to live and die with how "hot" Brunson's shooting is that game. He will have big games that bail us out occasionally and make us think it offsets the deficiencies but in a 7 game series vs Detroit, Spurs and Thunder - we are simply not good enough because of the Brunson focused offensive style we play. This doesn't even introduce the defensive problems we have w/Brunson but I'll leave that out as we have the same problems/limits with KAT.
You get what I'm saying.
My guess is the average Knicks fan worships Brunson (which I do understand) and are not prepared to really engage the question of whether he is the player you build around.
Brunson's greatness exists in a vacuum. He's a singular talent who does incredible things ALL ON HIS OWN, but that doesn't mean he is an easy player to construct a roster around.
I've mentioned once in the past that winning a championship with Iverson is a similar situation as winning one with Brunson. You might even get to the finals, but a superior team will always beat a great individual player and that happened to Iverson the one time he was able to put the Sixers on his back and get to the Finals. He ran into Kobe and Shaq of course, but it is very rare for such a high usage shoot first PG to lead a team to a championship.
PG is the one position that is very hard to build around as the primary scorer. I don't think most fans have considered this very deeply, because the primary scorer on most teams is rarely a PG. And if the PG is a good scorer they are usually an elite shooter who doesn't eat up the clock; they either shoot quickly or set up their teammates.
martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:BlueKnickers wrote:Knixkik wrote:jskinny35 wrote:Knixkik wrote:martin wrote:jskinny35 wrote:For me I think OG is the closest to an untouchable player (and he's not). Bridges, Towns and Hart are all quality players with flaws and it seems clear the chemistry isn't there. I actually would move Brunson before moving these other guys because I think it's easier to replace scoring for scoring vs intangibles that OG, Hart and Bridges offer. You replace Brunson with Haliburton and this team looks and plays completely different. I realize that is not going to happen but the point is our engine (Brunson) is like a mini cooper that can outperform at times - but also struggles when racing against cars with bigger engines. Brunson doesn't offer enough besides great shooting (at times) to offset why we have to start Bridges, OG and Hart next to him (to hide his defensive limitations). This reminds me of the 2001 Sixers with Iverson - they overachieved until they faced higher level teams (Lakers) and couldn't really come close.Can we find a pass first point guard that is not a defensive liability and shoot decently from outside? If so that may be the quickest path to maximizing what our roster offers without revamping again around Brunson or blowing it up entirely...
Brunson is an elite closer and there are only a handful of those guys in the league.
IMHO, if anything, Knicks will trade KAT+ for Giannis to rectify the missing Alpha leadership guy on the team, which, in theory, will straighten the problems and also create a trickle down effect of righting the ship.
Yeah the simple thing is moving KAT if it’s not working out. Maybe it’s a large package for Giannis. If not, making it’s a roundabout trade for more playmaking/ shot creation. Maybe someone like Dejounte Murray who would pair nicely next to Brunson as a shot creator with good defensive qualities. A lot of possible directions if things don’t work out. Everyone has to take a step back and remember this team is really good and Brunson is the #1 reason why. Hes not going anywhere.
I agree that Brunson would likely be the last player they would move... but my argument is it's much easier to replace a small/diminutive scoring PG vs replacing all the complementary pieces that surround that PG (that all are very solid players). Maybe there is another player to add to the mix that improves our chemistry - but with a shoot first and ball dominant PG we will still likely struggle with ball movement which lowers our ceiling against tougher/grittier defensive minded teams with length (eg Pistons, Rockets). It's great to have a closer who is clutch at times... but if the ball stagnates enough of the time then there are going to be many games that don't even reach the stage where you need that clutch shooter to get you over and win the game.
It feels like we are good provided Brunson is "on" but when they put enough length on him Brunson often struggles with shooting and doesn't seem to pivot and pass well enough to still impact positively. Ane this is without the limits on defense. You can make almost the same argument for KAT but I see him face up and try to move the ball out of the post plenty. I do agree KAT will almost certainly be the one moved this off season though...
Replacing a small diminutive scoring guard is much easier than replacing Jalen Brunson. He’s 1 of 1. Complimentary pieces will come and go but he’s the franchise.
Brunson's is definitely one of a kind. There has never been a player quite like him.
That does not make him a franchise player.
Yes, he is the face of the franchise and his origin story as the son of Rick Brunson makes him the ultimate company man, but that is not the same thing as being the player you should build a roster around.
Brunson is an incredible scorer and his very strength as an ISO player is also the root of his weakness as a PG.
He's a star for sure, a great and innovative scorer and clutch as hell.
But superstars either have a big impact on both ends of the court or they at least make everyone on the floor better on at least one end of the court.
Brunson does not impact both ends of the court despite leading the league in gathering charges and he most certainly does not elevate his teammates.
I said it before, Brunson bails out the Knicks, he does not elevate the rest of the team.
This season has made it clear Brunson's game is not likely to win a team a championship. His center of gravity is great, but he doesn't take advantage of it as a distributor.
Brunson is a mediocre PG at best. His floor general skills ebb and flow. It is rare to see him orchestrate with great skill with any consistency.
He's a great scorer, nothing more, nothing less and because he is so average as a distributor it will be very hard to construct a team around him.
His game is a blessing to him, but probably a curse to roster construction.
Therefore, Brunson is one of the most dynamic scorers in the game, but he is not a franchise player. He's just the face of our franchise.
The ultimate conundrum about Brunson is he has to have the ball in his hands to do his thing, but he shouldn't really be the PG.
He should be a SG who plays next to a skilled distributor. But that will probably never happen because he is too famous now and nobody will ask him to play off the ball even if that would be the best solution for any team he is on.
There is no reason to worship Brunson as "The Franchise"
He's not the great leader we may have thought he was and the team has stagnated under his leadership at the PG position. Our victories are due to overall talent, but this team lacks any cohesion or consistency. That falls to the PG first, then you look for other reasons after that. He is supposed to be the unifying element on the team and he is almost the opposite of that.
Everyone has their own definition of a superstar. Over the previous 20 years prior to Brunson showing up, the Knicks were really bad. Since he arrived, the switch completely flipped and the Knicks are one of the most consistently great teams in the league. 50+ wins is a standard we could only dream about 5 years ago. That’s mostly Brunson. Doesn’t mean he’s perfect. I agree the goal moving forward is to add more shot creation around him. Moving him off the ball even more is doable given his catch-and-shoot ability. All of it is possible. Try not to over complicate it. This is a really good team, but also a slightly flawed roster. Both can be true. Brunson isn’t perfect, but he’s far from the blame.
No question Brunson (and Thibs) have helped us go from an afterthought franchise to relevant and now - very good! The question is can we build around Brunson in a way that allows us to compete for a championship or is it better to try to rebuild in a different way? The best case scenario is our coaches help Brunson stretch his passing and ball movement abilities so we can work with him. I'm just not sure how much he can stretch at this point in his career. Kind of the same argument some of us threw around with Randle and holding the ball (eventually we cut bait). If Brunson can't move the ball more it seems realistic that we will either need to acquire more players around thim that are above average defensively and also excellent with ball handling and passing. I just feel it's easier to fix one problem vs continuing to apply duct tape around the elephant in the room. SGA and other solid defensive players will most often reduce Brunson's offensive effectiveness (over a 7 game series) so we are set up to live and die with how "hot" Brunson's shooting is that game. He will have big games that bail us out occasionally and make us think it offsets the deficiencies but in a 7 game series vs Detroit, Spurs and Thunder - we are simply not good enough because of the Brunson focused offensive style we play. This doesn't even introduce the defensive problems we have w/Brunson but I'll leave that out as we have the same problems/limits with KAT.
Here is a simple hypothetical: If Mo Diawara was much better/more experienced, would that alleviate the starting lineup problems if he replaces Josh?
I think it would.
IMHO the Knicks look really good and also really bad this year, and it still has them at about the 5th best team in the league, give or take, definitely second tier after OKC/Detroit. When it's bad, it boils down to 1 main thing: Brunson having the ball in his hands too much. If you are able to alleviate Brunson's 1 weakness away, and while doing that make him a focused spacer/scorer and secondary ball handler, you actually help make him even more at the one thing he is already elite at, and that is scoring and shooting.
Imagine GSW without Green. Curry and Thompson would need to create more for their team with ball in hands, now imaging Hart on that team instead of Green. Knicks don't need a Draymond level player but they do need that role to be better for everyone else.
Unfortunately Mo is probably 2 years away from that. But Giannis is not.
Yes, the concept of what Mo can become is the missing piece. The issue is how early he can actually get to that point.