The Knicks continue to be plagued by defensive lapses, turnovers, missed free throws, and excessive and disproportionate foul calls. Yet given all of this the Knicks finally won a third quarter convincingly to only let it slip away in the fourth.
Losses like this put enormous pressure on Knicks administrators and coaches to "do something". Angry expensive-ticket holders and resale profiteers start to rattle the cage loudly.
While this game certainly should have been a win, it isn't really that surprising that it was a loss.
Another blog reports, "On Wednesday, Fisher was asked about investing so much time and energy in players who may not be here for long.
“To assume anything is not very smart at all,” Fisher said. “Guys that you assume will be here for a long time may not. Guys that you think won’t be here could be here forever. So it’s really only my job to focus on the here and now.”"
In a previous post, I asked the same question and the Orlando game demonstrates the confusion. Cole Aldrich, once again DNP - puzzling to say the least. Stoudemire did but was mercifully not involved in the fourth quarter battle.
And Fisher's five on the floor combinations were actually better assembled chemistry-wise.
Yet Fisher's answer to the aforementioned question is troubling for a number of reasons. First, is he implying that there are no takers for certain Knicks who have larger salaries and therefore he's pressured to give minutes to? If the answer is that we are "stuck" with what we have then will Jackson advocate to Dolan that they swallow salary and cut a Stoudamire or Bargnani to make room for players more likely to develop a lasting impact? Or are fans also "stuck".
Another possibility is that the Knicks, rather than building a new core and structure are also in the rehabilitation business. For example "teaching" Stoudamire to play defense. This is no doubt an admirable notion but is it practical to invest that kind of (dubious) effort into an aging star whose heart and mind are honorable but whose skills can no longer be counted on for the journey ahead?
It seems to me that New York Knicks fans have more patience in rooting for young, flawed talent than tolerating compounded losing causes (games lost on short-timers). Fisher, rather than assuming that the here and now represent an eternal patience on the part of Knicks fans might be better serving in using the here and now to bring players roles into focus. In the case of Amare, Fisher should have a man-to-man talk that includes a reality check that Amare's role is limited and cannot be considered a core component of the year ahead and that STAT should become the best situational player he can be for the remainder of his contract. The same goes for a few others.
Winning with youth are true wins. Winning with short-timers is meaningless.
Winning with youth are true wins. Winning with short-timers is meaningless.
No comments:
Post a Comment