|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| So why Okafor? “He’s really good now. Young, but he has it all. One thing he might lack is lateral quickness,” said one scout. “But he’s tough, he can score inside, he can take you out a little bit. He’s a good kid, works hard. I think he’s a major star when the time comes. A year with Mike Krzyzewski helps. He’s pro ready.” For all his praise of Okafor, the scout also raved about Towns, especially his development from last year. So if the Knicks think big, and it’s not Okafor, then Kentucky’s Towns comes into play. “For me, right now it’s 1 and 1A,” said one exec, “and No. 1 is Towns. I’m not saying Towns is clear cut and I think the Knicks will have to do a lot of homework and studying. But both have great potential and high upside. Okafor is good offensively, you know he’s going to score. Towns will get better offensively but he could be really good on the defensive side of the ball. “Towns could be a Tyson Chandler-type but with more offense. He’s already shown more offense at an early stage than Tyson did,” the executive said. But as one opposing player personnel guy said, “They had Chandler and gave him away.” And that guy likes Russell for the Knicks. Even over a big? “Everybody thinks bigs but it’s a point guard-driven league, [with] the way those guys get to the foul line with the ball in their hands,” he said. “I think it’s easier to find a big to give you a defensive presence than it is to find a guard who can break people down. This is really tough. It comes down to Towns, Okafor and Russell. It all depends on what they [Knicks] want to do, what their mindset is going forward. “Towns is a great defender, great shot blocker. Has some offensive skills but he’s defensive minded. He moves his feet well, great size. Okafor is not really an athlete. He’s a basketball player. He smart as anything, has huge hands, makes good passes. Russell’s a real athletic guard.” |
That and 40 million extra... lol
I like Towns #1 overall but I'm not breaking my television if we end up with Russell or Mudiay. Maybe I'll look like a moron (especially with wild card Mudiay) but I'm not seeing a huge gap between the 4 as prospects.
If we picked 5th he'd be in the mix for me sure.
And yes, he is considerably more athletic than Russell. The idea in the link that Russell is a top athlete is just wrong. He's a very nice player, with great passing instincts, but he might get schooled on the defensive end by the really quick pg's. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mudiay ends up better, and a number of mock drafts have him ranked higher.
In terms of the guards vs. the bigs, the problem is that there is so little talent in FA at pg. If we knew we were going to get someone like Monroe, one of the guards might be preferable, but of course, the draft comes first. At this point I prefer Towns--he will develop more of an offensive game after leaving Kentucky, and on defense, there is no comparison. Of course, the argument is made that Okafor uses most of his energy on offense for Duke, but you can't teach the quickness Towns brings.
A PG at 5 would be a ridiculous reach of a pick. A big at 5 would likely be WCS or rolling the dice on Porzingis. Gun to my head I guess I'd go WCS but I wouldn't be all that happy. What PG is worthy of #5 overall?
The odds of the Knicks winning enough games to fall out of the #1 lottery spot are tiny anyway--2 1/2 games behind Minnesota, 3 behind Philly. The Knicks finally found something they are good at: tanking.
Jon,
Thanks. Just saw the size, age and numbers and wondered why he's never mentioned.
Quote:
poeltel is a stiff. He's JAG who benefits from being a legit 7 footer when most college centers at 6'9 on a good day.
Jon,
Thanks. Just saw the size, age and numbers and wondered why he's never mentioned.
It's a fair question. You have fun at Bronson last night? I thought it was a decent show but not his best. And the venue sucked.
The odds of the Knicks winning enough games to fall out of the #1 lottery spot are tiny anyway--2 1/2 games behind Minnesota, 3 behind Philly. The Knicks finally found something they are good at: tanking.
Yeah but the whole discussion is basically "who do you take 5th if that doomsday scenario happened" since most agree the top 4 is pretty set in stone.
If the Knicks draft a 5'7, 320 guy, I will definitely hurl the remote.
Link - ( New Window )
With AAU more players are trying to play on the perimiter rather than play inside...it is "cooler" nowadays to play on the outside rather the boring methodical post up...
Coaches do not want to teach it, they sit back and just let the kids play and they do not learn any fundamentals..
So the kids that can play back to the basket are being weeded out and over run by the more athletic outside bigs or they are being turned into outside players because that is what every one is doing now...
So guys that would have had the ball pounded into them all day every day end up like Andre Drummond who are truly athletically dominant bigs with barely a post game.
Also, the one and done college system doesn't help big guys develop their post games.
That's one thing I like about Monroe. He's not the athlete or the defensive presence that Drummond is, but he actually has a legit post game.
Plus he can pass the ball well for a big guy.
Quote:
the topic of builds, why do you guys think we see so few talented "true bigs" nowadays? Where are the Shaq, Ewings etc going? It's not like they are playing other sports. Will we ever see another Shaq? It seems like we are more likely to see another Lebron which is crazy.
With AAU more players are trying to play on the perimiter rather than play inside...it is "cooler" nowadays to play on the outside rather the boring methodical post up...
Coaches do not want to teach it, they sit back and just let the kids play and they do not learn any fundamentals..
So the kids that can play back to the basket are being weeded out and over run by the more athletic outside bigs or they are being turned into outside players because that is what every one is doing now...
You can just say that you think black people ruined basketball. It is clearly what you're getting at.
I've seen old game tapes and the fundamentals were terrible. People were shooting from wherever and the defense was piss poor. The players were smaller and much less athletic. The game had to change when the athletes and coaching got so good.
Quote:
In comment 12202334 DanMetroMan said:
Quote:
the topic of builds, why do you guys think we see so few talented "true bigs" nowadays? Where are the Shaq, Ewings etc going? It's not like they are playing other sports. Will we ever see another Shaq? It seems like we are more likely to see another Lebron which is crazy.
With AAU more players are trying to play on the perimiter rather than play inside...it is "cooler" nowadays to play on the outside rather the boring methodical post up...
Coaches do not want to teach it, they sit back and just let the kids play and they do not learn any fundamentals..
So the kids that can play back to the basket are being weeded out and over run by the more athletic outside bigs or they are being turned into outside players because that is what every one is doing now...
You can just say that you think black people ruined basketball. It is clearly what you're getting at.
Do not put those words in my mouth....I never once said that...
What i said was the game is moving to the perimeter and the atleticism is changing in the NBA...I never once said it was ruining the game...
Then you say "So" kids that play the back to the basket are being weeded out and over run but your first points dont support that. you laid a foundation for players not wanting to play inside and coaches not giving a shit, neither of which speaks to why a player who wanted to play inside would not be able to thrive there (if anything, he'd have a competitive advantage). Finally you said that they're "being turned into outside players" but again you support is that most players WANT to be outside and the coaches at best dont care (which I reject as unsupported).
And no where in your wet hot mess of a post is an assessment of fact that the game is moving outside and athleticism is changing the NBA. Your post was an attempt to explain why people are playing the outside, NOT a mere observation that the game is moving outside.
Even Amare Stoudemire went from 0 post game to a surprisingly effective one.
I just think it's been de-emphasized around the league. Players have gotten so proficient at the 3 pt shot that it's made the mid-range shot obsolete and frowned upon.
The competition for NBA roster spots right now, drawing people from 6 continents, in unbelievable. It is much harder to be a marginal NBAer these days. Add in developments in coaching, video review, workout regimens, and nutrition, and it all leads to better play. We have not regressed to some dark ages where the peasants are wondering how people 800 years ago build the baths and aqueducts.
At the elbow what ruined offense is the rough hedge that re-routes the dribbler. I remember what Jimmy Spanarkel said a couple of years back. Had he played against the rough hedge at Duke, he would have dribbled straight into the defender and spent his college years shooting free throws. But the refs didn't call it that way until this year when a degree of sanity has been restored. However, the accommodation has still tilted to the defense . Offensive fouls on questionable moving screens are still being called far more frequently than block calls by the big on the rough hedge.
So defense today is more effective. That gives the appearance of an erosion of basketball skills. It's not.
The biggest problem on this team is DEFENSE.