I agree with Kerr - I think Isiah should have reached more with the 21 and 30 pick, I am ok with Channing because I think he will def help but he could have added more 7 footers.

I know he tried to trade down but he couldnt for whatever reason.

here come the haters:

http://www.nbadraft.net/2005draftgrades001.asp

these guys handed out A's like candy to most teams, even gave toronto a B, and slam the Knicks with a D. they really have to pull their heads out their asses and stop being a bunch of biased tools. i like the nbadraft.net site for its mocks and scouting reports, but their nba analysis is so lame.

I agree with everything DJ said. Well, except that last sentence...

Posted by Allanfan20:

I have to disagree b/c he still got rid of our best frontcourt defender to get Q Rich.

I think any tiny difference in the defense between Kurt, Malik, and JYD is much less important than the huge upgrade of replacing TT with Q. Q will score 5 more points, give up 5 less points, and grab 2 or 3 more rebounds than Kurt. That's simply an enormous difference

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/30/2005 11:05:13]

The big thing the Knicks did was take kids who know how to play and have really high basketball iq's. I don't understand why anyone is knocking them for not drafting guys who can't play yet and may never be able to play at all.

2005 NBA Draft Grades

Jonathan Givony - President Printer Friendly Page
June 30, 2005

Jonathan Givony hands out his report card to NBA teams on how they handled the craziest draft of all time, while sharing some inside information about what happened behind the scenes, telling you what's next for a couple of prospects and looking at some of more disturbing trends from this year's draft.

Draft Grades:

#8: New York Knicks: C

Channing Frye, C, Arizona (#8)
Nate Robinson, PG, Washington (#21)
David Lee, PF, Florida (#30)

While Channing Frye will probably never live up to the spot in which he was drafted, it’s hard to come up with a better player that they could have taken at this spot considering their roster and who was left on the board. Isiah later told people close to him that had Channing Frye been taken by the Raptors like most NBA executives expected, he would have opted for Andrew Bynum with the pick. Only time will tell if he should have indeed hoped for that to happen. Nate Robinson at #21 was a bit of a reach, but from what we are hearing he would not have slipped past the Heat at #29 had he gotten that far. Robinson can play in this league, though, and NY fans are going to love him. Isiah Thomas was obviously trying to take the most athletic players he could get where he was drafting, and David Lee is another player that fits into that mold. The Knicks had three first round picks in probably the deepest draft of all time to work with, but don’t really appear to have gotten that much better unfortunately.

-----------------

This is exactly what I said the other day and the reason my initial grade was a C. I will stick with the B though because they fit into a style of play and I trust Isiah's drafting. I do think this is fair though... we are somewhere between a B/C

If we get a coach that can help us establish a style of play we will definatly get better.

If Marbury is going to walk the ball up the court we are winning 30 games again

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Allanfan20:

I have to disagree b/c he still got rid of our best frontcourt defender to get Q Rich.

I think any tiny difference in the defense between Kurt, Malik, and JYD is much less important than the huge upgrade of replacing TT with Q. Q will score 5 more points, give up 5 less points, and grab 2 or 3 more rebounds than Kurt. That's simply an enormous difference

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/30/2005 11:05:13]

What are you smoking dawg. Q and Defense should not be mentioned in the same sentence, and he will not grab 2 or 3 more rebounds than Kurt. Kurt Grabbed 10. Q grabs about 5 or 6, which is GREAT for a 2 guard. But trust me dude, KT is a flat out better defender than Q.

Like I said though, it will be a good trade one we continue upgrading that frontcourt b/c IT'S STILL NOT GOOD! It wasn't good with Kurt, and now it's a LITTLE WORSE w/o Kurt, but we'll see. It wasn't a trade that deserves an A. It deserves a B, but it all depends on if Q turns to the player he should be, and if we upgrade the frontcourt more. But for now, the Knicks still aren't a good team.

It's a good young core than I can see working together nicely forming a nice bond together. I can see them as guys fitting together, but they are gonna need some glue. Can Marbury provide it? Or is he not enough of a leader? If he can't be a leader, and if Houston is done with us, than perhaps we need to trade Marbury for a glue type player, perferably in the frontcourt. That's why I mentioned Dalembert. Dalembert is NOT better than Marbury, but he's going to be exactly what the team needs and he would probably instantly change our image. I'm not saying Philly would do this, but these are the types of moves we need to consider.

It seems like the pieces to the puzzle are starting to fall into place though, but the shakeup IS NOT done.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Allanfan20:

I have to disagree b/c he still got rid of our best frontcourt defender to get Q Rich.

I think any tiny difference in the defense between Kurt, Malik, and JYD is much less important than the huge upgrade of replacing TT with Q. Q will score 5 more points, give up 5 less points, and grab 2 or 3 more rebounds than Kurt. That's simply an enormous difference

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 06/30/2005 11:05:13]

What are you smoking dawg. Q and Defense should not be mentioned in the same sentence, and he will not grab 2 or 3 more rebounds than Kurt. Kurt Grabbed 10. Q grabs about 5 or 6, which is GREAT for a 2 guard. But trust me dude, KT is a flat out better defender than Q.

Like I said though, it will be a good trade one we continue upgrading that frontcourt b/c IT'S STILL NOT GOOD! It wasn't good with Kurt, and now it's a LITTLE WORSE w/o Kurt, but we'll see. It wasn't a trade that deserves an A. It deserves a B, but it all depends on if Q turns to the player he should be, and if we upgrade the frontcourt more. But for now, the Knicks still aren't a good team.

Oops, I meant to say he'll grab 2 to 3 more rebounds than TT--the player I expect him to be replacing (not than Kurt). My bad.

I've never heard Q referred to as a bad defender before a few posters here started saying that after the trade. He's very strong and I've always heard him referred to as either average or above average. Regardless, you can't deny that he'll give up fewer points than TT (and he'll probably score more points than TT).