PDA

View Full Version : What do you think should be the starting 5?



$ NyC $
07-15-2008, 06:39 AM
Take out Randolph/Marbury since its obvious they're both eventually leaving..whether we like it or not...

What do you think should be our starting 5 and the first 3 options off the bench?

Mine goes like this

PG Chris Duhon
SG Jamal Crawford
SF Wilson Chandler
PF Danilo Gallinari aka Gallo aka the Rooster bka DG or also known as Dani lolll
C David Lee

1. Eddy Curry
2. Nate Robinson
3. Q Rich

(ofcourse afterwards i'd have Balkman and Collins)

I think this is actually a good lineup..and fits the system well...The starting 5 is very athletic..not that good at defense but D'antoni never really cared about D (unfortunately)..but they can hold their own...Chandler is a great defender..Duhon is a good one..David Lee is decent..from what i saw from Gallinari he hustles (HES A HUSLA) AND crawford...is well crawford..never realli defended..but he does get a few steals now and then..

To match our lineup we got a good combination of scoring/defense off the bench..Eddy Curry has never done anything but score..so instead of giving him 32 minutes to score 17 we'll give him around 27 and he'll still get around the same scoring #s (14, 16..around there)...when ever Curry gives you something else its a bonus...

Then we got Robinson who is a scorer and semi-playmaker..he's a high energy player..so so far we got a Center and a PG off the bench...

Then we have Q-Rich (shooter, decent rebounder)..Balkman (great defender)..and Collins (good defender..is a guard) off the bench...just so we have 5 people off the bench you can throw in Jeffries who defends but nothing else..

I think the knicks should focus on getting another Big man..preferably like Biedrins

and all this depends on if Marbs, and Z-Bo get traded...

you guys agree?

whats your opinion

bigdll
07-15-2008, 06:59 AM
ewing
oakley
mason
starks
harper

i'd love to see them pound on the primadonnas of today's game.

babyshaq87
07-15-2008, 07:05 AM
duhon
crawford
richardson
gallo
randolph

good lineup.. with robinson-collins-chandler-lee-curry as the second unit.. anyway please don't trade randolph but trade curry... many teams could want him (i think miami could want him more than anyone else).. i'd love curry for blount+wright..

PJAF
07-15-2008, 07:33 AM
Right now if there are no changes, Marbury, Crawford, Danilo, Zach and Curry.

HOZ THE KNICK
07-15-2008, 07:55 AM
1 duhon
2 crawford
3 chandler
4 randolph
5 lee

bench
nate,curry,marbury and the rooster....thats a 9 man rotation.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 08:50 AM
I cant imagine going as small as some of these lineups during the regular season.

Curry
Dlee
Chandler
Jcraw
Duhon

Nate, Danilo, Jeffries off the bench

Knicks845
07-15-2008, 08:58 AM
1 duhon
2 crawford
3 chandler
4 randolph
5 lee

bench
nate,curry,marbury and the rooster....thats a 9 man rotation.

That's a nice looking line up in their system.

lionheartc
07-15-2008, 09:06 AM
Duhon I think it might be time for marbury to go
Crawford No suprise here he is our best player
Wilson I think we need to go young at the SF position.
Lee I rather start lee ahead of zach and offense off the bench
Curry I hope he can have A better year

nascar10294
07-15-2008, 09:23 AM
duhan/robinson
crawford/marbaury
chandler/gallanari
lee/robinson (battle it out in preseason for starting spot)
curry/[get a backup]

Trade Q rich and Balkman

PostYourEyes
07-15-2008, 09:37 AM
Curry
David Lee
Danilo
Crawford
Duhon

Giaps
07-15-2008, 09:49 AM
I cant imagine going as small as some of these lineups during the regular season.

Curry
Dlee
Chandler
Jcraw
Duhon

Nate, Danilo, Jeffries off the bench

This is my starting 5 as well but replace Jeffries with Q.

yankeesown69
07-15-2008, 09:56 AM
Duhon
Crawford
Chandler
Lee
Curry

1. Nate
2. "rooster"
3. Q/ jeffries

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 09:59 AM
This is my starting 5 as well but replace Jeffries with Q.

The only reasons why I have JJ over Q are.

1) Jeffries would actually playing some backup center and backup PF not much SF

2) Q's strengths (if you can call them that) seem to duplicate Chandlers and Danilo's. I would rather see the young guys play before Qrich.

I think Jcraw said it very well yesterday. Sometimes too many players is just as bad as too few. I'm like a tight 8 man rotation where guys have defined minutes and roles when possible.

6deep
07-15-2008, 10:07 AM
For me its....

PG Marbury VS. PG Duhon
SG Crawford VS. SG Chandler
SF Q Rich VS. SF Gallo
PF Randolph VS. SF Lee
C Curry VS. C

IMO: Chandler can play the two spot (he showed he's working on his stroke & his Defense is much improved) & Gallo is a SF ( he's more comfortable facing up , not posting up! and will have difficulty guarding & rebounding PF's) I loved what I saw when they were both on the floor.

I'd trade Crawford & Randolph....Dump Marbury, sign Roberson.

and go with...
PG Duhon
SG Chandler
SF Gallo
PF Lee
C Curry

6th Robinson
7th Q Rich

This lineup has the best balance between Defense & Offense, with a young core group who will pass the ball and learn the game together. That's a nice future team.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 10:11 AM
I like Will Chandler to play SG at times but I dont think that is his natural position. I think we need guys in the backcourt that can make creative passes to make the 3 bigs play at higher levels. Sometimes we need our guards to penetrate and dish or kick out. Chandlers game is more about getting his right now rather than setting the table.

I would rotate Duhon, Jcraw, Nate at the 2 guard spots with Chandler playing SG around 5-10 minutes a game.

cheetos185
07-15-2008, 10:14 AM
craw/duhon
Chandler/Q
Danilo/Balkman
Lee/jeffries
Curry

6deep
07-15-2008, 10:20 AM
I like Will Chandler to play SG at times but I dont think that is his natural position. I think we need guys in the backcourt that can make creative passes to make the 3 bigs play at higher levels. Sometimes we need our guards to penetrate and dish or kick out. Chandlers game is more about getting his right now rather than setting the table.

I would rotate Duhon, Jcraw, Nate at the 2 guard spots with Chandler playing SG around 5-10 minutes a game.

Do you really want your sg setting the table? That's the PG's job. I want him to run around screens, curl to the corner, hit that open shot or drive to the basket. I think Chandler can do that & be a Kobe type player (he has the size and speed to dominate). I am talking out my azzzz. coffee buzz!

nyjf
07-15-2008, 10:25 AM
Take out Randolph/Marbury since its obvious they're both eventually leaving..whether we like it or not...


We like it!

Randolph leaving gives us cap room, and anything else is a bonus. And it's an indisputable fact that every team Marbury leaves gets better as soon as he's gone.

He leaves the T-Wolves and they make the playoffs the next 7 years.
He leaves the Nets and they go to the NBA finals the next 2 years.
He leaves the Suns and they have the best record in the league the next year.

Is there any doubt that the Knicks will get better in the years following his departure?

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 10:29 AM
Do you really want your sg setting the table? That's the PG's job. I want him to run around screens, curl to the corner, hit that open shot or drive to the basket. I think Chandler can do that & be a Kobe type player (he has the size and speed to dominate). I am talking out my azzzz. coffee buzz!


I think on a good team you have both guards able to help their bigs/wings get better shots. Kobe helps his guys get better shots often. I'm not saying that Chandler cant play SG occasionally. I'm just saying I do not see that as his natural position at this time.

NYK
07-15-2008, 10:30 AM
If we get rid of Zbo it should be like this

PG-Marbury (If he is sill here)
SG-Crawford
SF-Chandler
PF-Lee
C-Curry

6deep
07-15-2008, 10:32 AM
I think on a good team you have both guards able to help their bigs/wings get better shots. Kobe helps his guys get better shots often. I'm not saying that Chandler cant play SG occasionally. I'm just saying I do not see that as his natural position at this time.

I watched the game again last nite and I loved the chemistry I saw between Chandler & Gallo. They could be a good pair to grow on. Chandler really improved in all facets of his game & Gallo has the tools. Mardy didn't look that impressive, but his stat sheet was really nice and I was surprised after the game.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 10:34 AM
I watched the game again last nite and I loved the chemistry I saw between Chandler & Gallo. They could be a good pair to grow on. Chandler really improved in all facets of his game & Gallo has the tools. Mardy didn't look that impressive, but his stat sheet was really nice and I was surprised after the game.

I agree I liked how Chandler and Gallo communicated and shared the ball. Gallo actually looked like the most unselfish player on yesterdays team.

Mardy had his plus side yesterday (scoring/rebounding) but I saw Gallo wide open multiple times on the wing when I was disappointed that he did not get the ball.

NiTiNoZ
07-15-2008, 10:36 AM
PG. Duhon
SG. Crawford
SF. Chandler
PF. Gallinari
C. Curry- might have a comeback yr he, might be a catalase to many open looks due to defensive importance to craw, chand, and gallo...

Bench:

D.lee
because, danilo can be a prolific scorer, he has a sweet shot they need that in the line up, and d.lee is the PF/C spark off the bench, like ginobli is a spark off the Spurs bench. (obviously keeping in mind there contrasting talents and importants to the teams ofcourse, but just show the importance.) His energy and exuberance is what we need off the bench.

N. Robinson- Going again with the d.lee story brings enrgy off the bench, and i know he is a bit wild, but under a coach with a "stable" system, he might blossum into a leader off the bench, so go with his vocal team attitude.

Q. Rich- he has lost his spot most likely in the line up, but if still on the team can be a leader, and has lost 20 lbs, so well he might move up/down the court quicker, and i see him having a better shooting % this season under Coach D.

Isiah just messed with everybody's head, he had no direction, no base to his gameplan, which leads to no confidence from his players when it comes down to it...

Buts thats just what i think, the rest of the players with obviously find roles as the season progesses...

KnickVeteran
07-15-2008, 10:36 AM
We like it!

Randolph leaving gives us cap room, and anything else is a bonus. And it's an indisputable fact that every team Marbury leaves gets better as soon as he's gone.

He leaves the T-Wolves and they make the playoffs the next 7 years.
He leaves the Nets and they go to the NBA finals the next 2 years.
He leaves the Suns and they have the best record in the league the next year.

Is there any doubt that the Knicks will get better in the years following his departure?

he already went to the playoffs with them twice....

you left out the face that the nets and suns added on once he was gone. They added players to their roster. Do you want me to compare the roster when he was there both destinations and compare it after he left? It's a big difference....

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 10:39 AM
I dont think Gallo at age 19 is physically able to start at PF against some guys like KG, Duncan, etc. He will play PF occasionally but SF would fit him much better right now until his body matures. In the future it sure would be nice to see Danilo and Chandler both starting and playing at a high level.

KnickVeteran
07-15-2008, 10:43 AM
I don't think Gallinari will come in and start right away. I think he will come off the bench.

6deep
07-15-2008, 10:46 AM
Gallo could be an important LEADER on the team. I hope he doesn't change & learn to be selfish. That would be terrible.

KnickVeteran
07-15-2008, 10:50 AM
I think it's way too early to call him a leader

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 10:52 AM
Gallo could be an important LEADER on the team. I hope he doesn't change & learn to be selfish. That would be terrible.

I agree that is possible especially if the guys like him and accept him as a part of the future.

His unselfishness could become contagious and that would be a great example of unspoken leadership on the court. Actually the kid tried leading via communication with teammates as well yesterday. I was impressed.

6deep
07-15-2008, 10:54 AM
I think it's way too early to call him a leader

I said he could be an important leader. don't get your panties in a bunch. Oh. I forgot. Marbury's the leader.:speechless:

NiTiNoZ
07-15-2008, 10:57 AM
I dont think Gallo at age 19 is physically able to start at PF against some guys like KG, Duncan, etc. He will play PF occasionally but SF would fit him much better right now until his body matures. In the future it sure would be nice to see Danilo and Chandler both starting and playing at a high level.

you're right SLY, but aren't the guys in the euroleague big also, i agree they a more running game there and are less physical, and if thats what you are refering to as what he needs to adjust to, then i agree, but my argument is we are in rebuilding mode, shouldnt we just insert him in the lineup anyway. Its not like we are the pistons and we leave milicic on the bench cuz we are a playoff championship contender... know what i mean...? thats what i believe, in no way do i believe we are playoff ready, BUT i know we wont embarrase ourselves anymore, and teams instead of laughing at the knicks might aplaud us for their effort and resiliance, like the phillies of last yr...

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 11:09 AM
you're right SLY, but aren't the guys in the euroleague big also, i agree they a more running game there and are less physical, and if thats what you are refering to as what he needs to adjust to, then i agree, but my argument is we are in rebuilding mode, shouldnt we just insert him in the lineup anyway. Its not like we are the pistons and we leave milicic on the bench cuz we are a playoff championship contender... know what i mean...? thats what i believe, in no way do i believe we are playoff ready, BUT i know we wont embarrase ourselves anymore, and teams instead of laughing at the knicks might aplaud us for their effort and resiliance, like the phillies of last yr...

Nit,
DG will play and play a lot in my opinion. There are no worries there at all. :)

Its just best to play him at whichever position fits him best to let his confidence grow as soon as possible. Yesterday having him try to guard a guy like Tractor Traylor inside was absurd. Its like asking a 10 year old kid to guard a 18 year old kid inside.

As DG's body matures he may very well become a PF but right now his slender frame not to mention his wing type skills make him better suited for SF. I'm sure he will play some PF this year. It just is not his best fit at age 19. There is no reason for us to try and force anything. He is too good a prospect for that. Lets nurture him and build his confidence so that he becomes a NBA star! :)

NiTiNoZ
07-15-2008, 11:20 AM
agreed, the pouning from traylor was bad, but u got to admit, he kept coming and coming and the put back dunk came after the pounding. The boy shows resiliance... and he took control for a bit in the 4th, which was exciting. Its the summer league so i dont want to go over board or anything but it was fun none the less...

NiTiNoZ
07-15-2008, 11:22 AM
that kind of atitude and talent, in ny is a recipe for success. HOPEFULLY... LOL

carlo
07-15-2008, 11:27 AM
PG ..... Duhon

SG ..... Crawford

SF ..... Gallo

PF ...... Chandler

C ...... Lee


People seem to think Lee's defense sucks .... I think it's OK (definetely needs work) but miles ahead of Curry.

MSG34
07-15-2008, 11:37 AM
PG- Duhon
SG-Crawford
SF-Chandler
PF-Lee
C- Curry

Gallinari, Nate and Balkman rotate in.

Everyone is sleeping on Balkman because he can't shoot. I'd bring him off the bench for when we go small because he can run the fast break very very well.. This guy is probably our most athletic player outside of nate. He can block shots(had like 4 block shots yesterday), grab rebounds, and play hard with some minutes. I wouldn't play him a ton but he'd get some time.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 11:48 AM
agreed, the pouning from traylor was bad, but u got to admit, he kept coming and coming and the put back dunk came after the pounding. The boy shows resiliance... and he took control for a bit in the 4th, which was exciting. Its the summer league so i dont want to go over board or anything but it was fun none the less...

He had great resilience but good coaches put their players in the best possible situation for them to succeed usually. Being such a young player coming from over seas I think it is even more important that we nurture his confidence and bring him along at his best position.

MSG34
07-15-2008, 11:50 AM
There's alot of talk about how Gallinari played Traylor. How about how Balkman played Traylor. Gallinari's got like 3 inches on Balkman but Balkman in my opinion played Traylor better, he even blocked his shot.

mistattc
07-15-2008, 11:51 AM
1. Duhon
2. Crawford
3. Chandler
4. Lee
5. Curry

Bench
1. Danilo
2. Nate
3. Jeffries
4. Q-Rich

Balkman will be stapled to the bench until, someone gets injured or plays their way out of the rotation.

This is a good rotation.... Our starting 5 gives us a post threat (curry), an out side threat (crawford & duhon when needed), a mid range threat (chandler) and intangibles (lee, chandler & duhon)

The bench brings more energy & versatility..... Can you imagine the Coach runnin teams out the gym with a line up of..... Nate, Crawford, Chandler, Danilo & Lee or Jeffries or how about.... Duhon, Nate, Crawford, Chandler & Q-Rich.... We got options!

29$JerZ
07-15-2008, 12:32 PM
Starting 5

Duhon
Wilson Chandler
Danilo Galanari
David Lee
Eddy Curry

Bench
Nate Robinson
Jamal Crawford
Quentin Richardson
Jared Jefferies

Wilson and Danilo together look great IMO
They help eachother out
Start them as early as you can so they can be our future and be well prepared
We have 2 scorers off the bench in Jamal and Nate
Quentin can play the 2 + 3
Jared can play the 2 + 3 + 5 + 4

Hustla23
07-15-2008, 01:19 PM
Duhon
Crawford
Chandler
Lee
Curry

1. Danilo
2. Nate
3. Balkman
4. Jeffries

Balk would be great for us rotating in and out of the 2 + 3 + 4 since he's so athletic and versatile and he's our BEST on the ball defender. He runs the lanes very well on the fast break for those skying dunks. And he's our BEST shot blocker lol. Damn Renaldo, if only you knew how to shoot, coulda been somethin' special.

Nate's instant offense off the bench.

Danilo's benched only because he's a foreign rookie and will take some time to get used to the NBA. Starting him right away might stint his development. Let him find his niche and hot spots.

Streaky4Life
07-15-2008, 01:31 PM
Duhon, Crawford, Chandler, Lee, Curry

29$JerZ
07-15-2008, 01:33 PM
Balkman is our Bowen/Rodman breed player

If any one can teach him how to shoot its mike and his staff

Give him time

2010 or Bust
07-15-2008, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by SLY WILLIAMS
I cant imagine going as small as some of these lineups during the regular season.

Curry
Dlee
Chandler
Jcraw
Duhon

Nate, Danilo, Jeffries off the bench

I feel the same.....I think Marbury will be gone by the beginning of the season and I don't think the Rooster is ready to start.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 01:40 PM
I think many people are actually guessing what will quite possibly turn out to be our eventual starting lineup.

Curry
DLee
Chandler
Jcraw
Duhon

That would include 3 new starters. (Duhon, Chandler, Dlee.)

Rabbit77
07-15-2008, 01:45 PM
Duhon/Nate/Collins
Gallo/Crawfrd/Nate
Chandler/Gallo/Q
Lee/Jeffries/???
Curry/Lee/???


If Gallo can keep up with the SG's in this leage I'd rather have him playing more outside where he could use tht sweet shot and passing ability (already better than Crawford) than playing inside and getting tossed around by the NBA's bigs.

No Starbury, No Z-Hog, No Zeke....or Jerome I didn't earn a thing James. Maby now we can get some team Chemistry?

NYK
07-15-2008, 01:46 PM
I think many people are actually guessing what will quite possibly turn out to be our eventual starting lineup.

Curry
DLee
Chandler
Jcraw
Duhon

That would include 3 new starters. (Duhon, Chandler, Dlee.)

That looks like a good lineup to me, and we would still have a very strong bench with Nate Gallo and most likley Q. The 9th man would probably be Balkman.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 01:59 PM
That looks like a good lineup to me, and we would still have a very strong bench with Nate Gallo and most likley Q. The 9th man would probably be Balkman.

Nate and Gallo will play for sure. In my mind those 7 are the clear top players minute wise going in to this season.

I think the rest of the minutes that will depend on situational need would be fought over by Jeffries, Balk, Qrich, Mardy and Malik.

If Jerome is gone maybe we bring in a prospect and send that prospect to the NBDL.

2010 or Bust
07-15-2008, 02:03 PM
3 new starters = 15 to 20 more wins

I think the biggest difference that we are going to see is David Lee's game helping Curry's. When Curry is the number one option he puts up big numbers. Now that we have Duhon and Crawford feeding Curry and Lee getting all the scraps we have good balance in the starting 5. Lee also has energy, whenever we started games last year we always got down early and then put in Lee and Nate to make up the difference. Now that we're starting Lee we should be able to keep up with teams early in games.

Plus if we can get Ben Gordan or something in return for Zbo our bench could be incredible. Can you imagine having Nate and Gordan come off the bench. It would be like having two Vinny "THE MICROWAVE" Johnson's lighting it up.

metspride21
07-15-2008, 02:04 PM
1 duhon
2 crawford
3 chandler
4 randolph
5 lee

bench
nate,curry,marbury and the rooster....thats a 9 man rotation.

lee is not a 5, he is an undersized 4, what are you people crazy?

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 02:06 PM
3 new starters = 15 to 20 more wins

I think the biggest difference that we are going to see is David Lee's game helping Curry's. When Curry is the number one option he puts up big numbers. Now that we have Duhon and Crawford feeding Curry and Lee getting all the scraps we have good balance in the starting 5. Lee also has energy, whenever we started games last year we always got down early and then put in Lee and Nate to make up the difference. Now that we're starting Lee we should be able to keep up with teams early in games.

Plus if we can get Ben Gordan or something in return for Zbo our bench could be incredible. Can you imagine having Nate and Gordan come off the bench. It would be like having two Vinny "THE MICROWAVE" Johnson's lighting it up.


That would be a mighty impressive lineup although a small back court if they played at the same time.

Curry and Dlee played great together for a 3 month period in 2007. I would be happy to give them another shot together especially with Chandler helping out with boards and blocks from SF. Duhons defense on the perimeter will be a large help as well. Our guards have been like human turnstiles for 5 years.

2010 or Bust
07-15-2008, 02:14 PM
I agree about Curry and D lee...In 2007 they looked great together. You can't have five scorers all on the floor at the same time. D Lee is perfect for this lineup because he get's his point from putbacks and rebounds. He doesn't even care if he scores "thats a rare player in this league". They might get beat on defense a few times put so will all our other options.

As for Gordan and Nate, "yeah" it will be a small backcourt but no smaller than Mike D using Barbosa and Nash.

Chrisstyles
07-15-2008, 02:20 PM
marbury, crawford, chandler, lee, and curry

rooster, nate, duhon, and balkman.

if steph is on the team he will start because he will kill duhon in practice, that his first competition and he's in his contract year. i feel bad for duhon

knicks religion
07-15-2008, 02:23 PM
Duhon [ until marbury gains back his confidence or if he's bought out]
Crawford
Chandler [until quentin earns back a starting spot ]
D. Lee
Eddy Curry

javaid64
07-15-2008, 02:50 PM
Marbury (until he's traded or waived)
Crawford
Galinari/Chandler/Qientin (depends on dantoni)
Zach (until he's traded)
Curry (unitl he leaves due to medical retirement, Daibeties, high blood pressure, heart attack etc.)

that should be our set 5 at this point in time. until trades happen nothings changing so people make your staring 5 based on what we have not what MIGHT happen

emilgard076
07-15-2008, 03:15 PM
Curry
DLee
Chandler
Jcraw
Duhon

i dont want any ball hugs or negetive players on our team that dont pass. i hope we play players that have heart and husle and arent just there becouse they have too our future is based on young players and we can only hope they develope if not trade haha

Barnaby8787
07-15-2008, 03:35 PM
Danillo is 6'8, 210 pounds...hes not playing power forward...he's too small and doesn't play enough defense to be a pf

LeeWrightQuinn
07-15-2008, 03:52 PM
duhon
crawford
q-rich
gallo
lee

q-rich has been losing weight and flourished under d'antoni once before. the lineup can't be too young if we wanna win and make the playoffs this year. plus chandler could play both the 2 and the 3 of the bench so he will still be playing a lot

THE MTL
07-15-2008, 04:05 PM
Duhon/Nate
Crawford
Chandler/Gallinari
Lee/Jeffries
Curry

THE MTL
07-15-2008, 04:08 PM
Danillo is 6'8, 210 pounds...hes not playing power forward...he's too small and doesn't play enough defense to be a pf

Thats what im saying. In the first half he actually looked like a liability on the defensive end, but it improved.

GiantYankKnicks
07-15-2008, 04:12 PM
Danillo is 6'8, 210 pounds...hes not playing power forward...he's too small and doesn't play enough defense to be a pf

hes not 6'8 hes 6'10......

THE MTL
07-15-2008, 04:17 PM
hes not 6'8 hes 6'10......

No, he is not 6'10". Iono why they kept saying that, but at the draft measurements he was 6'8.5". They got wrong information.

GiantYankKnicks
07-15-2008, 04:18 PM
No, he is not 6'10". Iono why they kept saying that, but at the draft measurements he was 6'8.5". They got wrong information.

Walsh has already said numerous times that hes 6'10 and still growing

THE MTL
07-15-2008, 04:31 PM
Walsh has already said numerous times that hes 6'10 and still growing

He is not 6'10". He is pushing on 6'9". Its all over that he is 6'9". And also Walsh never said that.

Giaps
07-15-2008, 04:39 PM
The only reasons why I have JJ over Q are.

1) Jeffries would actually playing some backup center and backup PF not much SF

2) Q's strengths (if you can call them that) seem to duplicate Chandlers and Danilo's. I would rather see the young guys play before Qrich.

I think Jcraw said it very well yesterday. Sometimes too many players is just as bad as too few. I'm like a tight 8 man rotation where guys have defined minutes and roles when possible.

I hear ya but I think I'd rather have Lee play the 5 and Q is strong enough to guard the 4 when we go small and he can rebound. Jeffries is like Balkman in the sense that he'll only be effective on help defense and only in the open court and put backs.

GiantYankKnicks
07-15-2008, 04:40 PM
He is not 6'10". He is pushing on 6'9". Its all over that he is 6'9". And also Walsh never said that.

Go back and watch interviews from after the Draft Walsh Said he was 6'10

Anji
07-15-2008, 05:09 PM
No, he is not 6'10". Iono why they kept saying that, but at the draft measurements he was 6'8.5". They got wrong information.

What draft Measurement??? He never went to the Orlando Pre-draft, he only worked out for the Nets and Knicks.............. who both have said he is 6'10.

$KnicksAndKobe$
07-15-2008, 05:11 PM
He is not 6'10". He is pushing on 6'9". Its all over that he is 6'9". And also Walsh never said that.

He is about 6'8.5 without shoes.
He is 6'10 WITH shoes.

MSG34
07-15-2008, 05:20 PM
He is about 6'8.5 without shoes.
He is 6'10 WITH shoes.

i always thought the with and without shoe measurements were funny, lets just stick to 1 system...Gallinari's playing basketball in shoes therefor I'd say he is 6 10

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 05:21 PM
I dont know what is true and what isnt but a week or so before the draft they said Gallo surprised teams because he was a legit 6-10. I even read 6-10 without shoes on one report

Juelz36
07-15-2008, 05:28 PM
Gallo is 6'10, but my starting lineup would be:
1. Duhon
2. Crawford
3. Chandler
4. Randolph(just to see if we can raise his value in a trade)
5. Curry

NYKnickFanatic
07-15-2008, 05:32 PM
Marbury.
Crawford.
Q or Chandler.
Gallinari.
Lee.

Fast line up.

Run -N- Gun!

PC
07-15-2008, 05:37 PM
I say we trade Zach Randolph in some sort of deal for DeAndre

MARBURY
Crawford
Chandler
Danilo
Curry

stoopboy45
07-15-2008, 05:40 PM
ewing
oakley
mason
starks
harper

i'd love to see them pound on the primadonnas of today's game.



Those were some GOOD times my friend.....I remember them well!!!!

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 05:45 PM
I hear ya but I think I'd rather have Lee play the 5 and Q is strong enough to guard the 4 when we go small and he can rebound. Jeffries is like Balkman in the sense that he'll only be effective on help defense and only in the open court and put backs.

I have Lee at the 4 so he could play some back up at the 5 but we still need a backup at the 4. This is assuming Zach is gone.

I dont have as high a hope as you do for Q. I hate the thought of Qrich trying to defend guys like KG, Amare or Duncan at PF.

29$JerZ
07-15-2008, 05:54 PM
We have a Glut of SF's

But you have to take into consideration the following

1 - Quentin Richardson
He has 2 years basically left because of his player option. We have to find some way to boost his value so we can ship him somewhere else. However It's not likely that we will do such a thing and he expires before 2010 so I don't see him being a Top priority to remove. Use him when you need him, forget what he is being paid. He was paid to be our SF but we have Danilo and Wilson now so he must except a lesser role.

2 - Renaldo Balkman
He is our most expendable player because he can't score well. Love his defense and he is a nice 10/11 man but we are going to be in a sort rotation. He can be used in a package, Isiah signed him because we lacked a Defensive Forward but we have Wilson who is better than him so Renaldo can go.

3 - Jared Jefferies
We are stuck with him for THIS SEASO AT LEAST, once his contract gets 1 yr shorter he will be more valuable.As for now use him as a backup.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 06:00 PM
We have a Glut of SF's

But you have to take into consideration the following

1 - Quentin Richardson
He has 2 years basically left because of his player option. We have to find some way to boost his value so we can ship him somewhere else. However It's not likely that we will do such a thing and he expires before 2010 so I don't see him being a Top priority to remove. Use him when you need him, forget what he is being paid. He was paid to be our SF but we have Danilo and Wilson now so he must except a lesser role.

2 - Renaldo Balkman
He is our most expendable player because he can't score well. Love his defense and he is a nice 10/11 man but we are going to be in a sort rotation. He can be used in a package, Isiah signed him because we lacked a Defensive Forward but we have Wilson who is better than him so Renaldo can go.

3 - Jared Jefferies
We are stuck with him for THIS SEASO AT LEAST, once his contract gets 1 yr shorter he will be more valuable.As for now use him as a backup.

Qrich had some decent years as a Clipper. I dont think they wanted him to leave. Since he has only 2 years to go and they need players I keep thinking Qrich for a 2nd round pick makes a lot of sense for us and the Clips. Maggette just left the Clips as did Brand. He can slip right in at SF or he can back up Thorton.

Now if Zach and Qrich are dumped we could be under the cap by next summer never mind 2010.

29$JerZ
07-15-2008, 06:05 PM
Qrich had some decent years as a Clipper. I dont think they wanted him to leave. Since he has only 2 years to go and they need players I keep thinking Qrich for a 2nd round pick makes a lot of sense for us and the Clips. Maggette just left the Clips as did Brand. He can slip right in at SF or he can back up Thorton.

Now if Zach and Qrich are dumped we could be under the cap by next summer never mind 2010.

I understand that Sly, but I'm viewing this from the Clipper standpoint

I may need some players but do I really wanna take Q Now before I see if he can help us? If Q is going to be just a 10 4 2 guy, do I really Want that when I can just ask for Zach and let Thorton be our SF and he will score/rebound/ more.

That's why I say Q is going to have to play about 2 months with us to see if Lac would want him. Too risky for their standpoint to take Q. Plus P is their biggest need and they can move Thorton o the 3 so a SF could be found later.

Believe me though I would love to dump Zach and Q's contract on them for virtually nothing. that 23 million + Marbury 22 Million plus Malik 7 = 52 million. Thats almost the League average Cap. But we have to convince teams Q is still good by playing him.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 06:14 PM
I understand that Sly, but I'm viewing this from the Clipper standpoint

I may need some players but do I really wanna take Q Now before I see if he can help us? If Q is going to be just a 10 4 2 guy, do I really Want that when I can just ask for Zach and let Thorton be our SF and he will score/rebound/ more.

That's why I say Q is going to have to play about 2 months with us to see if Lac would want him. Too risky for their standpoint to take Q. Plus P is their biggest need and they can move Thorton o the 3 so a SF could be found later.

Believe me though I would love to dump Zach and Q's contract on them for virtually nothing. that 23 million + Marbury 22 Million plus Malik 7 = 52 million. Thats almost the League average Cap. But we have to convince teams Q is still good by playing him.

The Clips have to add players and contracts. They could add both Zach and Qrich. They just lost Brand and Maggette. Its worth a phone call. Sometimes in life if you just ask you get surprised. :)

29$JerZ
07-15-2008, 06:15 PM
The Clips have to add players and contracts. They could add both Zach and Qrich. They just lost Brand and Maggette. Its worth a phone call. Sometimes in life if you just ask you get surprised. :)

lol I know man

I would ask to see if Q interest them.

I'm not against it I just don't wanna get my hopes up.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-15-2008, 06:23 PM
lol I know man

I would ask to see if Q interest them.

I'm not against it I just don't wanna get my hopes up.

LOL OK I will make the call but I wont tell you about it until it is a done deal. :D

29$JerZ
07-15-2008, 06:26 PM
LOL OK I will make the call but I wont tell you about it until it is a done deal. :D

Forget the Call, Give me the number :)

Orange N Blue15
07-15-2008, 06:46 PM
mine would be without crawford and randolph because i want them to get traded because of their contracts and randolph because hes a bum

duhon
steph
chandler
gallinari
curry

6th lee
7th robinson
8th q rich

trout1627
07-15-2008, 07:33 PM
Assuming Marbury and Randolph are gone and we make no new aquisitions

Center: Curry backed by Jeffries
Power Forward: Lee backed by Balkman
Small Forward: Chandler backed by Galinari
Shooting Guard: Crawford backed by Robinson
Point Guard: Duhon backed by Collins

But I don't think we are anywhere near done moving and acquiring new players.

nyjf
07-16-2008, 01:34 PM
he already went to the playoffs with them twice....

you left out the face that the nets and suns added on once he was gone. They added players to their roster. Do you want me to compare the roster when he was there both destinations and compare it after he left? It's a big difference....

You can compare Marbury's face tatoo to Mike Tyson's if you want to. It won't change the fact that EVERY TEAM MARBURY LEAVES GETS BETTER AS SOON AS HE LEAVES.

You can offer explanations, excuses, comparisons and whatever else blows your hair back. It won't change that one indisputable fact.

Besides, after Marbury is Gone (and all Knick fans dance in the streets), do you have any doubt that we will start adding on? It may be a year or 2 before that happens, but the Knicks will get better too. Once Marbury LEAVES!!!

nyjf
07-16-2008, 01:39 PM
He is not 6'10". He is pushing on 6'9". Its all over that he is 6'9". And also Walsh never said that.

He is only 19 years old, and he's still growing, so arguing over one inch of height in June 2008 is silly. Even if he WAS 6'9", he'll be maybe 6'10" by mid-season, and maybe taller the following year. Give the guy a chance - his pubes haven't even grown in yet.