-Knicks now 6th in the lottery. 1.5 games behind philly for the 5th spot and 2.5 games behind Orlando for 4th. Looking like they have a good chance at a top 5 pick.
- Rubio with 22 points and 19 assists last night. He's been playing great the last month. TWolves have played very well. 7-3 in their last 10 with some very impressive wins over GSW and Wizards. 3.5 games out of 8th seed but they should be formidable next year. Maybe Thibs trades for Butler?
- Butler with 22pts, 6 rebs, 11 assists last night.
- Brogdon 15 points and 8 assists
- Vinsanity with 24 points. Amazing what he's doing this late in his career.
- Big win for Utah over the Clippers. George Hill with 19 points, 8 rebs, 6 assists.
How is it a waste? If the player in question is significantly worse off but fits a position of need, I don't understand that logic.
If we are talking about getting Dennis Schroeder at the point vs Shawn Kemp at the 5 (not my comparisons, draft net has these) I think I'm damn sure which one I'll be taking. I don't think the discrepancy from Fox to Williams is equivalent to the talent discrepancy of Kemp vs Schroeder, but I personally think the answer lies somewhere within those 2. And if scouts/GMs agree, then what's the issue?
I'm as big of a WH fan as there is, but if we're talking about pairing KP with a potential perennial All defensive team player at the 5, Willy wouldn't stop me from doing so. I also think long term, the offensive value of Willy won't be higher than Williams, if at all. Willy can be a fantastic 6th man. But
WH can be a serviceable defender, but given his athletic limitations I don't have high hopes for him as being a dominant defensive enforcer. I'm not sure who would, to be honest with you.
Not saying Willy is useless, but it's hard to justify giving 30+ minutes a night to a 5 that doesn't space the floor or protects the rim. Hell, JV in Toronto isn't an awful rim protector but Toronto can't justify giving him more than 25 minutes a night. It just means we should expect Willy to play more of an Enes Kanter role rather than Marc Gasol.
If Isaiah Thomas started shooting like Carlos Boozer his release point would still be like 5 inches below where Ball's release starts.
Markannen is going to be a wonderful pro imo.
Quote:
want a 4 or 5. Waste of resource, unless its a massive talent difference. Like if we end up with the #1 pick next year and Deandre Ayton is still the consensus #1, sure. At the 7th pick in the draft, it makes no sense.
How is it a waste? If the player in question is significantly worse off but fits a position of need, I don't understand that logic.
If we are talking about getting Dennis Schroeder at the point vs Shawn Kemp at the 5 (not my comparisons, draft net has these) I think I'm damn sure which one I'll be taking. I don't think the discrepancy from Fox to Williams is equivalent to the talent discrepancy of Kemp vs Schroeder, but I personally think the answer lies somewhere within those 2. And if scouts/GMs agree, then what's the issue?
I'm as big of a WH fan as there is, but if we're talking about pairing KP with a potential perennial All defensive team player at the 5, Willy wouldn't stop me from doing so. I also think long term, the offensive value of Willy won't be higher than Williams, if at all. Willy can be a fantastic 6th man. But
WH can be a serviceable defender, but given his athletic limitations I don't have high hopes for him as being a dominant defensive enforcer. I'm not sure who would, to be honest with you.
Except how often in an NBA Draft do you have that kind of talent discrepancy between two players at 7? No, you don't reach for players who aren't skilled, but you aren't going to tell me that Williams was a top 3 player who somehow magically slipped. In fact, Fox is higher ranked on basically every mock draft, so its not as if he's a bum we'd be reaching for in your theoretical.
We have 2 above replacement level young players, who are both bigs. I just don't see the value in drafting a player at 4 or 5 who is similarly talented to a guy who is a 1 or a wing. The odds are at 7 you are getting a solid starter/role player and not a star, so why go at a position which clearly isn't a need?
2. Ball
3. Jackson
4. Smith
5. Tatum
6. Fox
7. Markkanen
8. Williams
9. Isaac
10. Monk
11. Hartenstein
12. Frenchy
I've started clip watching and reading. I have groupings. 1) Fultz 2) Ball and Jackson 3) Tatum, Smith, Markkanen, and Isaac. Maybe Monk in #3 as well.
I used to love Monk, but more and more he looks like a second banana on a good team, strictly a scorer. Maybe even a rich man's Ben Gordon.
Jackson is very good, but don't know if he has that "it" factor. Fultz and Ball do, not sure about Jackson.
Tatum is growing on me, but I think Jackson is the better athlete so I give him the nod.
Love Smith. The down year is concerning though.
BTW, do we have our first pick next year?
-I already like Magic more than Phil. Healthy scratch to Mozgoc the remainder of the year to look at their other players? Lol do that to Melo, Rose etc
Remember, Russell had a 39" vertical at the combine. He could shoot and had even better court vision than Fultz, and we know how he's turned out.
Not saying Fultz isn't going to be good, but you can't really say any prospect in this class is can't-miss.
But even with the PGs, the question must be asked -- when has a PG led team won a title? Since 1991, all but __ titles have been won by teams whose best players were wings or bigs (Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, KG, Dirk, MJ, Wade, Kobe, LeBron). That leaves the 2004 Pistons, aka "the Exception to every rule", and the Curry led Warriors. Curry is only kind of a PG, and more to the point is a singular shooter in NBA history. Probably have to go back to Magic to see a floor general PG led team win it all.
So is that a trend, or noise? I.e. Shaq, Duncan, MJ, LeBron were all the best player, regardless of position. Or is there something to it, that you're not going to win if you have a best player as a PG?
Luckily, I think it is not crazy for the Knicks to approach the draft thinking they have their Batman and just need a Robin for him. Or at least a 1a for their 1. Whereas a team like ORL or PHX is still shopping for a guy who can lead them.
2 jackson
3 tatum
4 fox
5 monk
i have not seen enough of isaac or williams and markannen doesnt seem like a great fit next to kp..
For whatever reason you don't like Ball, Fultz, Frenchy as lead guards, just play them at the 2. I don't know what would scare you about Ball or Fultz at the PG, but if you have someone else you'd rather run point, you can go ahead.
For Fox, I think almost all the intrigue is in his length/athleticism. To me he's serviceable as a PG but he doesn't do anything a PG does at a high level. He can run simply PnRs, but he's not even close to like John Wall as a passer (not saying thats what people are expecting, but it seems that's what Fox-hopefuls will be talking themselves into come draft time, just like Ingram and KD).
He's rail thin, and unlike Jackson/Isaac, he doesn't play stronger/more physical than his build suggests. He struggles finishing through contact from what I've seen. And Kentucky fans are up in arms about how he can't stay in front of good college PGs to save his life.
There's lots of red flags for Fox for me. I think he will end up being fine, but not elite. He'll end up in that 10-20 class of PGs where you can switch all of them around and it doesn't matter which one you end up with. Those guys you can get any year in FA if you want (albeit at a hefty price). I don't think he's the type thats worth taking the risk on with a top 6-7 pick in a supposed great class.
I just see alot more Emmanuel Mudiay than John Wall in Fox. Just me personally.
not to mention he was playing at 85%
I tend to agree. Jackson would have to be significantly better in the scouts eyes to justify the pick IMO, given that there are no sure things anyway.
There is really a dearth of guard depth in the league. The depth among the top 10-15 PGs disguises that. SG is super thin. There are few good, two way bench guards. It is far easier to cobble together 96 minutes a night at the 4-5 on the cheap ($$/asset wise), especially given what we already have.
And I think not getting a PG will hamper KP and WH's development. I'd reach a bit for a PG -- although I want a pick and roll guy, and Phil would have to leave for that.
Quote:
get a guard, specifically a point, from the rest of the top tier group. Going BPA is obviously the best philosophy, but I can just imagine KP and Jackson getting 12-15 shots a game while our pathetic guards dribbling the ball off their feet.
I tend to agree. Jackson would have to be significantly better in the scouts eyes to justify the pick IMO, given that there are no sure things anyway.
There is really a dearth of guard depth in the league. The depth among the top 10-15 PGs disguises that. SG is super thin. There are few good, two way bench guards. It is far easier to cobble together 96 minutes a night at the 4-5 on the cheap ($$/asset wise), especially given what we already have.
And I think not getting a PG will hamper KP and WH's development. I'd reach a bit for a PG -- although I want a pick and roll guy, and Phil would have to leave for that.
But what happens if we reach for a point and we get a good but not great PG? Like a #15-ish guy? Someone we can get in FA?
I don't think relying on a raw 19 year old PG is going to expedite KP/WH's development anymore than keeping Rose or getting a guy like Collison to run point for a few years to be completely honest with you.
Also I wouldn't rule out Josh Jackson's potential as a future PG. Remember GF looked awful at his first go as the team's PG. Heck the Lakers have tried Ingram at the point and same with the Suns and Booker. Josh Jackson has better PG skills than either of those 2.
He has it all, and is a more willing passer compared to other PG prospects with his gifts.
We have to keep tanking to keep him in the conversation for our pick.
I don't know how I feel about Fox. You can't judge a Kentucky player by their play on the court unfortunately, so it's all projection. If anybody is going to take a Westbrook-like leap, it's probably him though.
If we draft a PG, regardless of how good, with the thinking of helping KP/Willy, I'd be scared if we left that in the hands of Fox. He needs more development than either of our young bigs IMO.
I don't care what system you decide to run, a good PG will solve a lot of things. I don't see the me-first attitude with Smith, but who knows?
But what happens if we reach for a point and we get a good but not great PG? Like a #15-ish guy? Someone we can get in FA?
I don't think relying on a raw 19 year old PG is going to expedite KP/WH's development anymore than keeping Rose or getting a guy like Collison to run point for a few years to be completely honest with you.
Also I wouldn't rule out Josh Jackson's potential as a future PG. Remember GF looked awful at his first go as the team's PG. Heck the Lakers have tried Ingram at the point and same with the Suns and Booker. Josh Jackson has better PG skills than either of those 2.
What top 15 PG are we getting in UFA? Im 100% tired of waiting to fix issues in UFA. The fix doesnt come. Hard as hell to get guards in particular. Only thing you can reliable count on in UFA is defensively capable centers. Collison is not a top 15 PG.
And in any event, the same logic applies to other position. Why take a SF when you can sign one in UFA. As I said, a much superior F or C you take over a PG. But otherwise fill the glaring need for a G.
Quote:
But what happens if we reach for a point and we get a good but not great PG? Like a #15-ish guy? Someone we can get in FA?
I don't think relying on a raw 19 year old PG is going to expedite KP/WH's development anymore than keeping Rose or getting a guy like Collison to run point for a few years to be completely honest with you.
Also I wouldn't rule out Josh Jackson's potential as a future PG. Remember GF looked awful at his first go as the team's PG. Heck the Lakers have tried Ingram at the point and same with the Suns and Booker. Josh Jackson has better PG skills than either of those 2.
What top 15 PG are we getting in UFA? Im 100% tired of waiting to fix issues in UFA. The fix doesnt come. Hard as hell to get guards in particular. Only thing you can reliable count on in UFA is defensively capable centers. Collison is not a top 15 PG.
And in any event, the same logic applies to other position. Why take a SF when you can sign one in UFA. As I said, a much superior F or C you take over a PG. But otherwise fill the glaring need for a G.
Thats true too, but drafting an 18 year old with the expectation that he will immediately be able to help with the devlelopment of KP/Willy seems like a bad reason to reach.
Rubio isn't a top 15 PG, but wouldn't you think he'd be an ideal type of guy to help young guys to develop? To that extend, wouldn't Rogriduez fill that hole even if he's awful on D and can't really shoot?
To me there's a risk that a guy like Fox could be a head down, score first guard in the same vein as Derrick Rose. I can say with 100% confidence that Fox will not be a top 15 PG on the first day he sets foot on an NBA court. How many rookie PGs are? Heck, it would be impressive if a rookie Ball/Fultz/Smith would be immediately better than a Jrue Holiday or Dennis Schroeder. It would even be impressive if those guys became a top 10 PG by year 3.
I dont know why the standard to take a PG has to be "will he be a top 15 pg on day 1". It's a silly standard. Also, a PG doesnt need to be good, overall, to help his bigs. He just needs to do things that help the bigs. It's like a QB who takes sacks and throws picks -- does that mean he's bad for WRs? No, on the 90% of plays he isnt messing up, he could still deliver a great ball.
Addressing holes for the sake of addressing holes is how you end up with Mudiay or Dunn. Not saying that's what fox or frenchy will become, but that's the road you head down when you just look for need.
I'm sure Nuggets fans would've gone beserk if they took Booker instead of Mudiay but who would that look now?
Same with the wolves if they took hield, murray or chriss over Dunn.
Quote:
I prefer a PG but a SG would be nice too. I don't want Jackson or Tatum even though I admit they're good players. I am just tired of not addressing the glaring holes on this team. They have a first and 2 seconds. If they can't get one of the PG's in the first then I want them to grab one with their 2nd rounder. Jawun Evans from OK State would be good there. Maybe Derrick White from Colorado or Monte Morris from Iowa State as well.
Addressing holes for the sake of addressing holes is how you end up with Mudiay or Dunn. Not saying that's what fox or frenchy will become, but that's the road you head down when you just look for need.
I'm sure Nuggets fans would've gone beserk if they took Booker instead of Mudiay but who would that look now?
Same with the wolves if they took hield, murray or chriss over Dunn.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Plus I think it's a bit premature to write guys in their rookie seasons off. Dunn might develop. You don't know that.
I understand your point though (no pun intended).
I dont know why the standard to take a PG has to be "will he be a top 15 pg on day 1". It's a silly standard. Also, a PG doesnt need to be good, overall, to help his bigs. He just needs to do things that help the bigs. It's like a QB who takes sacks and throws picks -- does that mean he's bad for WRs? No, on the 90% of plays he isnt messing up, he could still deliver a great ball.
That's literally my point. My biggest worry about fox is that he doesn't do anything in terms of passing at a high level. So taking Fox because he would supposedly do a better job at developing KP compared to arose/Calderon the day he steps onto a court would be a mistake.
On the other hand, playing Rodriguez 33 minutes a game over 82 games might leave you with 15 wins on the season, but it wouldn't come at the expense of KP/Willy not running pick and rolls and getting proper post entries.
However, fox may be better than rogriguez day 1 and get you 20 wins, but would he be any better than Rodriguez in terms of helping KP/Willy his rookie year?
I think not.
I got your point bro. No worries.
Ty Lawson would've been another guy to add to the list but it seems his life is out of sorts at this point, bad culture fit.
There's also deron Williams but I think he might be ring chasing at this point.
The Vertical - ( New Window )
I hate evaluations based on record. I dont think Phil has been a disaster. I dont think he has succeeded, but I see no reason to traffic in hyperbole. I kill the Rose and Noah deals, but they're not disasters. If we had 30 more wins in the Phil era I wouldnt feel any better about this team.
My big issue with him right now is (1) he hasnt actually, publicly fessed up and agreed to a rebuild, and more importantly, (2) this triangle nonsense and the undermining of coaches. That's a huge issue. Basically, there are two people in the league committed to the triangle -- Phil, and Rambis. One is physically incapable of coaching, and the other is a bad coach. Everyone else will do it just enough to get hired but wont embrace it. Furthermore, unlike the Bulls and Lakers, which had their stars in place and were therefore able to have stable rosters, the Knicks roster is like a bus station, with massive turnover. Tough to install the triangle that way.
I do agree with the premise. Phil needs to coach or quit (only thing I can think of is him running practice and coaching home, BK, and Philly games). Seems pretty unlikely to happen, so he should quit. But he wont.
Quote:
I prefer a PG but a SG would be nice too. I don't want Jackson or Tatum even though I admit they're good players. I am just tired of not addressing the glaring holes on this team. They have a first and 2 seconds. If they can't get one of the PG's in the first then I want them to grab one with their 2nd rounder. Jawun Evans from OK State would be good there. Maybe Derrick White from Colorado or Monte Morris from Iowa State as well.
Addressing holes for the sake of addressing holes is how you end up with Mudiay or Dunn. Not saying that's what fox or frenchy will become, but that's the road you head down when you just look for need.
I'm sure Nuggets fans would've gone beserk if they took Booker instead of Mudiay but who would that look now?
Same with the wolves if they took hield, murray or chriss over Dunn.
You can make that case for a million players at a million positions. Think the Kings don't wish they had Booker instead of WCS, who pretty much matches the description you are giving for Williams pre draft? Unless the talent gap is massive between two players, which rarely happens past the top 3-5 in an NBA draft, you pick the guy that fills a need. It happens in the NFL because some teams pick for need which causes better players to slip, and in the MLB draft because of money requests, but not really in the NBA.
Quote:
In comment 13393073 EricNY33 said:
Quote:
I prefer a PG but a SG would be nice too. I don't want Jackson or Tatum even though I admit they're good players. I am just tired of not addressing the glaring holes on this team. They have a first and 2 seconds. If they can't get one of the PG's in the first then I want them to grab one with their 2nd rounder. Jawun Evans from OK State would be good there. Maybe Derrick White from Colorado or Monte Morris from Iowa State as well.
Addressing holes for the sake of addressing holes is how you end up with Mudiay or Dunn. Not saying that's what fox or frenchy will become, but that's the road you head down when you just look for need.
I'm sure Nuggets fans would've gone beserk if they took Booker instead of Mudiay but who would that look now?
Same with the wolves if they took hield, murray or chriss over Dunn.
You can make that case for a million players at a million positions. Think the Kings don't wish they had Booker instead of WCS, who pretty much matches the description you are giving for Williams pre draft? Unless the talent gap is massive between two players, which rarely happens past the top 3-5 in an NBA draft, you pick the guy that fills a need. It happens in the NFL because some teams pick for need which causes better players to slip, and in the MLB draft because of money requests, but not really in the NBA.
No I total get what you are saying. We aren't arguing about a can't miss prospect, consensus #1 vs a PG thats projected late 1st.
We'll see it in a few months. Williams played for a bad team and wasn't hyped before the draft, but he's inched his way into the top 10 as the season drifted on. He also had a great game against UK like 2 weeks ago.
The tournament will unfairly hype up/cool down some prospects, but when the dust settles I'll be interested to see what scouts say about Williams after they finish up the tournament film.
And no, WCS doesn't matchup with my personal take on Williams. WCS was just a pure defensive prospect with PnR ability. Was more Tyson Chandler but worse rebounding. Williams is a far superior rebounder, shooter, and post up player than WCS. I think he's more of an Antonio Mcdyess/Derrick Favors type than a Tyson Chandler. Draft net compares him to Shawn Kemp, and while thats a pretty high bar I do think he has that potential given his athleticism, size and feel for the game.