By Tommy Dee on Nov 09, 2009, 12:15 pm
“…How is it that a team like the Houston Rockets that boasts a rotation of role players and nobodies, is 4-2, and has competed in every game this season?
These are the players in Rick Adelman’s rotation:
My theory is that the Houston Rockets realize that they suck. They realize that they are outmatched on the talent flank in most games and they know that they have to make up for it with heart and effort. The current Knicks, by contrast, are a collection of players with an overinflated sense of their value.
- Trevor Ariza
- Carl Landry
- Shane Battier
- Aaron Brooks
- Luis Scola
- Chuck Hayes
- Chase Budinger
- Kyle Lowery
Is that a rotation that so clearly outshines what the Knicks put out on the floor, so much so that they can take teams to overtime (LA Lakers) that would surely build a 20-30 point lead on the Knicks in the first quarter?
What is the difference between these two squads? Why can’t the Knicks play like the 1999-2000 Orlando Magic, which had no bonafide stars, and players who knew they wouldn’t stick around after that season, yet still managed to win 41 games?..”
Interesting take, and you are also talking about a team that has proved it can be better without either Tracy McGrady or Yao. How much better, who knows, but they have something in the locker room that the Knicks don’t. Self pride. More.