What's Wrong with the Knicks... (April 23, 1999)

Patrick Ewing's knees are shot. Chris Childs couldn't lead a ball down a hill. Allan Houston can't hit a jumper. Marcus Camby can't play. Either can Charlie Ward. Chris Dudley never had game. Larry Johnson is a shell of his former self. Latrell Spreewell can't control his agent, can't play the Eastern Conference game, can't score within the offense, won't pass, wears cornrows. Charles Oakley was the heart of the team. John Starks was the heart of the team. Jeff Van Gundy is a Pat Riley clone, without the knowledge, moxy and respect of all of his players. Ernie Grunfeld doesn't know how to evaluate talent, can't control the salary cap, is a terrible GM. Dave Checketts has his hand in everything, doesn't have his hand in anything, doesn't do enough, does too much.

I can think of a few more excuses, but not too many more. Let's face it, the end of the Knicks is near. Let's start from the bottom and move our way up. Or to rephrase, move our way from the center outward. Patrick Ewing is a terrific player. He is worthy of being called one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. Not too many players, never mind centers, could hit the outside jumper like him. He has great back to the basket moves, and was a defensive intimidator with great rebounding instincts. Too bad he never won a championship when he had that game. Ewing is just getting old. Accept it. His knees are shot. He doesn't have his legs under him. The lockout took its toll on him. He was unable to workout and keep himself in great shape. Charles Barkley was able to keep himself in great shape and he's having a great year. Van Gundy for some reason continues to use Ewing as the center of the offense, in which all plays are run through him. I still contend that Ewing is a better center than most, but he's not the player he once was. Van Gundy's deep respect for Ewing's warrior mentality is admirable, but his loyalty to him may cost him his job and the team a playoff spot. Defensively, Ewing is still an intimidator and shot blocker, doesn't get caught out of position too often, and is still a terrific rebounder. He still earns his pay and deserves 35 minutes a game at center. He does not deserve 15 to 20 shots a game any more. Sure, he can score 20 a game, some nights, but I think his game is in direct conflict with the other players on his team. He should take his cue from David Robinson and become "Bill Russell", a defensive presence, a shot blocker, a rebounder and the second or third option of offense. While Robinson's statistics are substantially lower than his career averages, his team is fighting for the Western Conference title, and Tim Duncan is the main offensive threat.

The New York Knicks have many options, it's just a question of which one. Jeff Van Gundy has just continued Pat Riley's offense from the early 90's, pound the ball down low to Ewing. Back in the early 90's, Riley had only one really offensive threat, Patrick Ewing Riley had the aforementioned Ewing, Oakley, Charles Smith, Starks, Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and others. This was a great rebounding team, because they were big, strong, mean, just the way Riley liked them. They could afford to let Ewing pound it down low and play a slow half court game, because they had no real alternative. With the present day Knicks, there is a lot of talent, just not a lot of heart and hustle.

One could surmise that the trade of Charles Oakley, along with Sean Marks for Marcus Camby was simply unloading a veteran players, who's skills had started to erode for a young, energetic, athletic forward, who was the verge of super-stardom. One could also say that the best player in the history of the NHL was not Wayne Gretzky, but Wayne Cashman. One could say that, but in Canada, he'd be shot dead on site. That's like saying Ricky Williams isn't the best running back in the history of college football. Oh, wait, I forgot, the Indianapolis Colts thought he wasn't either think so. I think in Texas, Bill Polian or anyone else from the Colts head office could be shot on site, similar to the Gretzky clause. But I digress.

The Knicks losing Oakley was paramount to professional suicide. He was the heart and soul of that team. He played defense against the oppositions best big man. He was their best rebounder, even if he didn't lead him team in rebound. He was their spot up shooter. You could always count on Oakley to be open on the baseline for his 15 foot jumper. He is a great passer, especially his skills starting the break. Losing Oakley hurt. Getting Camby didn't help. Van Gundy didn't know how to incorporate Camby's unique skills in the Knicks offense. After watching Camby for a few years, I've learned a couple things about him. He's talented. Scary talented. Kevin Garnett talented. He can shoot up to 18 feet. He's got great back to the basket moves. He can put in on the floor. He can block shots. When he's inclined to do so, he's a great man to man defender. The draw back? He rarely does all this at once. He's a dog. He doesn't have heart. He seems to float when he's not the focal point of the offense, not getting touches. When he was getting his touches in Toronto, he wasn't happy where he was getting his touches, or some other excuse. There was always an excuse. Damon Stoudamire shoots too much. The entry passes move him off his spot. The sight lines at the SkyDome are bad. His shoes are too squeaky. Camby seems to need the ball in a certain spot. I think he's accustomed to getting the ball in a certain spot, like he did at the University of Massachusetts. Coach John Calipari ran most of the offensive plays for him, in a certain spot because he was virtually unstoppable in college. In the pros, it's not that simple. You can't just set up in the left block, or where ever his spot in college, you need variation, movement, etc. Camby is not a good rebounder. He doesn't have the desire to give up his body for the sake of the team. He's 6'11" and barely 230 lbs., if that. He's basically a small forward. Not dissimilar to Garnett, except, KG can rebound with ferocity. Camby would be better served playing small forward beside a brutish power forward or center, who could help him out. Van Gundy basically inserted Camby into Oakley's old spot and told him to rebound, block shots and stand at 15 feet for the open shot. That's not Camby's game. The Knicks won't get the best out of him using him like that. He'd be better served playing center in the Western Conference, where he could play in a more open style of offense, but since the Knicks signed him for 6 years, he better learn how to bang or he'll be hearing it from the New York faithful.

Kurt Thomas has taken up some of the Oakley slack, but Thomas is no Oakley. Chris Dudley is a stiff who seems to become a free agent at the right time. He's a player with no offensive game at all, and a very average defensive player. He's a good rebounder and shot blocker, but never gets more that 20 minutes a game. He's averaging on 14 minutes a game.

Larry Johnson is no longer the presence he once was. His explosion the basket seems to have disappeared. While he has extended his shooting range, to extend his career, he's power game has almost disappeared. In Charlotte, he was an undersized power forward averaging 20 points and 10 rebounds a game. In New York, he's slow, oft injured small forward, averaging 12 points and 6 rebounds a game.

The Latrell Spreewell experiment was a mistake from the beginning. Giving up John Starks, Terry Cummings and Chris Mills for Spreewell seemed like a steal for the Knicks. Pundits believed this would put the Knicks over the top. They had just traded for Camby and not got Spreewell. Two young studs to lead the Knicks into the new millennium. Someone forgot to tell Ernie Grunfeld that Spreewell is a selfish player, who was the focal point of the offense in Golden State. Someone who got the ball on almost every possession. Someone who only played defense, when it served him. Someone who never respected anyone. Someone not to build a franchise around. Well, the Knicks are learning that the hard way. Spreewell is better served playing alongside Camby in a wide open style of basketball, where their biggest strengths, their athleticism, would be accentuated. Their lack of toughness is a huge detriment in the rough and tumble Eastern Conference. John Starks along with Charles Oakley, was the heart and soul of the Knicks. Losing one would have been bad enough, losing too was too much. The Knicks lost both inside toughness and outside shooting. Dennis Scott was signed as a replacement for Starks, but was cut because of Van Gundy's paranoia and Scott's lack of intensity. Cummings and Mills were nice bench players the Knicks never have replaced. Cummings could player 4 and 5. Mills could play 2 and 3. That's veteran versatility the Knicks don't have now.

Spreewell and Allan Houston can not play along side each other. I think that much is clear. Both are immense talents, but only one can remain on the Knicks. Allan Houston is a tremendous talent. He can shoot. He can drive. He can play defense. He can do just about anything. Before the 1997-98 season, Allan Houston was the best shooting guard under 30. But something has happened since then. He's lost total confidence in his game. His game was better suited to the Pistons motion offense. I think he wanted to get out from under Grant Hill's shadow. Too bad he is now in the towering shadow of Patrick Ewing. In the Knicks troglodyte offense, the ball goes in to Ewing and maybe the ball gets kicked out when Ewing in double teamed. Houston spots and shoots. It doesn't really utilize all his talents. This is the same situation that Scottie Pippen is in with Houston. He is standing around and shooting when he could be doing so much more. But like Houston with Hakeem Olajuwon, the Knicks were very successful using this offense. A testament to Houston's skills is that he's still hitting 40% of his threes, even under all this adversity. The problem is that he's hitting only 41% from the field combined. If you hit threes with the same regularity as lay-ups, take the three, at least the payoff is better.

The Chris Childs/Charlie Ward two headed point guard beast is a mess. Both are good backup point guards, neither should be the starter. Together their statistics look much better than how they play. Neither are true leaders. Charlie Ward made a stupid move by copying an article from Reggie White, the esteemed former defensive end of the Green Bay Packers and religious blowhard. The article said that women should not be allowed in locker rooms after games. This was in response to alleged flashing incident, in which Larry Johnson flashed a female PR person for the Knicks. Not only a bad move by LJ, but a very bad move by the so-called floor leader of the New York Knicks. Neither player has a great outside game. Ward is a good defender, but directing his team's offense isn't his strong suit. Chris Childs has never lived up to expectation after receiving a larger contract. He is a decent player, maybe at best a third guard, but he's having trouble. The point guard situation is of great concern for the Knicks. Why else would they have tried so desperately to get Damon Stoudamire, Kenny Anderson, Stephon Marbury, etc. if they did not feel that their team was in need of an upgrade?

I have already made note of Jeff Van Gundy's respect and admiration of Patrick Ewing and his almost fanatical loyalty to Pat Riley's offensive and defensive schemes. Defensively the Knicks are one of the best teams in the league, there is no doubt. Offensively they are a mess. At least Riley never neglected the offense when he was on watch. Van Gundy is unable to bring any cohesion with these collection of players. Don't get me wrong, these are vastly talented players. Ewing, Houston, Spreewell and Larry Johnson could all be 20 point players on different teams, but together they don't the ball enough to make any of them happy. Ok, maybe Ewing gets the ball enough. They are used to getting the ball where they want and when they want it. With this offense, it's clear out, Ewing down low, and wait. Not exactly rocket science. With these players, Van Gundy would be better served opening up the offense, letting the players run more. Using the athleticism of Camby, Spreewell, Houston, Thomas and Ward to create some easy baskets. I'm not talking about running the old Paul Westhead Fun 'n Gun offense, but maybe opening the game up a little more like the Toronto Raptors have done. They have two old war horses down low in Kevin Willis and Charles Oakley, but their run athletic studs, Vince Carter, Doug Christie and Tracy McGrady get a lot baskets in transition.

Ernie Grunfeld was the first to go. He won't be the last. He was just the scapegoat for the moment. He fell on his sword for the team. He is a life long New York Knick, so he'll be assigned another job and people will forget about him in 2 months. His feud with Van Gundy may or may not have been blown out of proportion. What I do know is that the two didn't talk too much and they often got into arguments. Van Gundy didn't know about the Oakley deal until after it was made. He has publicly lashed out at Camby. He often sits Camby for the whole game. Van Gundy was trying to exercise some power by showing that he won't be manipulated. Instead of trying to get the most out of Camby's awesome tools, by tailoring some of their offense for him, Van Gundy just stuck him in Oakley's spot. When that didn't work, he sat. It was unfair to an extent for Camby, as he was stuck in the middle of this feud. Don't say that Van Gundy won and Grunfeld lost. No. If Van Gundy had been fired, it would have been like saying the Knicks were giving up on the season, especially since Patrick Ewing has publicly stated he is behind his coach. Just say that Jeff Van Gundy has outlasted his foil. The difference is that Van Gundy will be without a job and Grunfeld is still working for the Knicks, just in some other capacity.

Dave Checketts took over for Grunfeld until the end of the season. Was it his fault? Should he have seen this coming? Honestly, I don't know. He's not running the Knicks anymore. He runs the company that runs the Knicks, Rangers, Madison Square Gardens, etc. He's got more on his mind than the day-to-day operations of his teams. I do think that he should have tried better to iron out the difference between the coach and GM. A team can not function if the GM and coach are not on the same page. When next season rolls around, look for a new GM, who will select his own coach, with Teflon Dave somewhere in the background.

The Knicks are rumored to be in the market for Phil Jackson, as both GM and coach. Which team wouldn't want to have him? I don't think he'd go there. I think he's heading to the Lakers, where the team is more talented, younger and has a greater upside. The Knicks will have to basically start from scratch. They have a decent nucleus, but they have to scrap their old offensive and defensive schemes. I think only a young coach from the college ranks will want to move onto the New York stage and take over this team, since he would not have personnel control. Every coach these days worth his salt wants to control personnel decisions. That's why Pat Riley left. Any of the established college coaches that are mentioned every year, Rick Majerus from Utah, Bob Huggins from Cincinnati, etc. would want total control, and the Knicks probably are looking for a GM and a coach, not one to do both, unless it was a superstar like Phil Jackson.

Things do not look good for the Knicks. They still can make the playoffs. They have enough talent to do some damage. They have playoff experience. In a best of five, anything can happen, except maybe a Jordan-led Bulls team losing. In a best of seven, the Knicks might have more trouble. Either way, the Knicks are in a need of major overhaul. Look for it in the off season.

Return to Hoop-LA Home Page