Jeffries can do almost everything Rose can do, except guard Tim Duncan.

And he can do EVERYthing Balkman can do.

I think that you have to put in Collins as your point guard. He starts with Marbury being your 2 guard. Francis can be a back up point guard and Crawford is your back up 2 guard.

Nate sits on the bench and comes in with the energy line when the knicks are getting blown out.

Lee and Curry have to play together Lee is above average in rebounding and Curry is below average.

Make Frye a back up Center / PF and feature him in the second line. This way you can get his confidence back up and you can run some plays for him.

To me, the biggest quandary is: What rotations should be playing together? If I take what in IMHO are the top 5 players on the team (with Jeffries injured), I end up with: Crawford, Q, Curry, Stephon and Lee. Is that my starting five? On paper, that looks like my best rotation, but I’m not sure they have played like the best rotation.

Then I have Frye, Balkman, Rose and Nate. How do I use them most effectively? Is Nate a 1 or a 2? He looks like a 2 to me. So is Francis my backup PG then? He won’t play in that role — he’ll sulk. Does Frye sub as a PF, a C or both? PF I think. So then Cato/James is my backup C?

The problem here is that this team is the worst miche-mache of pieces that don’t fit together I have ever seen. In business, I’m generally a radical, action-oriented type of person. Damn the pain — what’s best for us long-term? So in my action-oriented mind I would have to say:

* To hell with Francis — play Collins as the backup PG and Nate as the backup 2 unless Collins proves to be untenable. Then again, I’m not a big Nate fan like most people. I would be tempted to release Francis (assuming he can’t be traded) just for the sake of him not clogging up the team’s future at G. Nate is at least tradeable / not a long-term salary cap liability.
* Lee is my starting PF and Frye is the backup until such time as anyone proves to me Frye can provide the energy on the boards to pair up with Curry. Jeffries might replace Lee when he comes back, so at that point Frye may be the odd man out unless we go to rotations with no true C.
* Marbury and Crawford are my main back court with Q providing the outside shot (such as it is) from SF. Crawford at least plays D occasionally.
* Balkman should be the backup at SF, unless the PF situation merits playing Jeffries as the backup here.

So where does that leave Rose? Another PF? Arrgh — very confusing. Everyone ragged on LB for inconsistency in his rotations last year, but in fairness to him, it’s damn tough to decide on steady rotations with this roster!

I still stand on this: http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=356

And I love the way Lee plays.

I admire his desire to be a part of the offense and demand the ball. Every Knick fan wishes Eddy Curry could be as assertive. But Rose’s demanding of the ball hurts the Knicks on offense. I LOVE Rose’s defense, but for it to work for the Knicks, he’s got to take a back seat on offense.

I agree with much of what you say, although Rose, if he isn?t taking too many shots, is more valuable to me than your dig might indicate. He might?ve gotten too much love from Brown, which encouraged his bad habits, but after a lousy year-plus, he may be a little more aware of what he can?t do anymore and just be grateful to be on the court.

Intriguing theory, Jim.

Sorta like how Lindsey Hunter reinvented himself as a defensive stopper?

I guess I can but it – it’s just so hard to buy into, when there is so little information on the ability of players to just abruptly change the way they play the game.