Not sure I love him myself but I could def see him being available cheap, or certainly in a S&T

BigDaddyG wrote:He looks like an average player who put up big numbers on a bad team. I would consider bringing if he played good defense, but his D is crappy. Plus, he's the type of player who needs to dominant the ball to be effective, but he doesn't shoot or pass well enough to justify it. I'd pass. It's not like we need more wing players at this point anyway.

I thought that defense was a part of Turner's MO. In any case, he does lack polish to his game but the guy is just 25 years old. Considering his potential and skill level, I think it'd be a safe bet that he improves and have a similar career trajectory of a John Salmons (who exploded in his late 20's with the Bulls and then Bucks). The triangle works best with big, rebounding swingmen who can handle the ball, so I'd take a gamble on Turner especially if it is small money.

He is worst than Felton in every offensive category including TS!

mreinman wrote:PASS!

He is worst than Felton in every offensive category including TS!

First Josh Smith...now Evan Turner. Are you purposely trying to **** on all the players I want/like?

BigDaddyG wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:I really like Evan Turner. All I think the guy needs is an opportunity, which he only got when the Sixers were bad. During that stretch, he performed well enough to justify dealing with his growing pains as a young player. Like I said in an earlier post, I could see the guy blowing up like John Salmons did during his half season with the Bulls and Bucks but with a longer shelf-life.

One issue Turner has that he will never be able to fix is that he's not a good athlete. He rarely makes it all the way to the rim and, when he does, he has tough time finishing. This means he has to settle for contested mid-range shots. His pull up J looks nice when it goes in, but he misses more often times than he connects with it. In order for him to be effective, he's going to have to learn to move without the ball, become a better spot up shooter, a more focused defender and learn how to become more of a complementary ball handler. He struggled with all those things when he played alongside Iguadola and Turner with Sixers. e's struggling in that role now with Pacers. I think he could become a good role player but I think there are probably younger, cheaper options out there.

To be fair, Brandon Roy wasn't a particularly stellar athlete but he was effective and allowed to be because he had the ball in his hands from day one. Sometimes we focus too much on what a player can't do, instead of what he can.

Turner is exceptionally long for his position, which will allow him to be a good team/positional defender. He is also a very good rebounder and good ball handler; a commodity in this league because it means that we'll be able to better push the ball off of defensive rebounds, speed up the game's tempo and get more shots in the process. And in spite of his shooting inconsistencies, Turner can still score well enough to not be a liability on the floor. That alone makes him better than anything we have at the 2 guard spot and in the triangle, I think his strength's will shine.

NardDogNation wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:I really like Evan Turner. All I think the guy needs is an opportunity, which he only got when the Sixers were bad. During that stretch, he performed well enough to justify dealing with his growing pains as a young player. Like I said in an earlier post, I could see the guy blowing up like John Salmons did during his half season with the Bulls and Bucks but with a longer shelf-life.

One issue Turner has that he will never be able to fix is that he's not a good athlete. He rarely makes it all the way to the rim and, when he does, he has tough time finishing. This means he has to settle for contested mid-range shots. His pull up J looks nice when it goes in, but he misses more often times than he connects with it. In order for him to be effective, he's going to have to learn to move without the ball, become a better spot up shooter, a more focused defender and learn how to become more of a complementary ball handler. He struggled with all those things when he played alongside Iguadola and Turner with Sixers. e's struggling in that role now with Pacers. I think he could become a good role player but I think there are probably younger, cheaper options out there.

To be fair, Brandon Roy wasn't a particularly stellar athlete but he was effective and allowed to be because he had the ball in his hands from day one. Sometimes we focus too much on what a player can't do, instead of what he can.

Turner is exceptionally long for his position, which will allow him to be a good team/positional defender. He is also a very good rebounder and good ball handler; a commodity in this league because it means that we'll be able to better push the ball off of defensive rebounds, speed up the game's tempo and get more shots in the process. And in spite of his shooting inconsistencies, Turner can still score well enough to not be a liability on the floor. That alone makes him better than anything we have at the 2 guard spot and in the triangle, I think his strength's will shine.

Nalod wrote:LIke many players mentioned there is one criteria that stands above all:

Could he succeed in the system? What does he bring that the team needs?
Metta bought tangibles, Rodman, Kerr, Pax......etc etc.

Phil and his GM"s knew what they wanted to round out the roster. Philly had its reasons for not comitting. Might have been financial, might have been personality, or skill set.

If they do well in teh draft they will have a very young but highy touted core. As we know, not all youthful cores pan out but they can always tweek it.

I recall Krause making a big play when he traded Jalen rose and Metta World Peach attempting a high school core of Eddy and Tyson!

Would I be wrong in comparing Skill set of JR smith and Evan turner?

Their skills are comparable in the same way that Bargnani's skill set is similar to Dirk's. But it doesn't mean they are on the same level. JR is a better player at this point.

Nalod wrote:LIke many players mentioned there is one criteria that stands above all:

Could he succeed in the system? What does he bring that the team needs?
Metta bought tangibles, Rodman, Kerr, Pax......etc etc.

Phil and his GM"s knew what they wanted to round out the roster. Philly had its reasons for not comitting. Might have been financial, might have been personality, or skill set.

If they do well in teh draft they will have a very young but highy touted core. As we know, not all youthful cores pan out but they can always tweek it.

I recall Krause making a big play when he traded Jalen rose and Metta World Peach attempting a high school core of Eddy and Tyson!

Would I be wrong in comparing Skill set of JR smith and Evan turner?

Very wrong!

JR smith has top notch "skills" in every aspect of the game. He just a dope (no pun intended). I think Phil can tame him.

He can score efficiently if he would not chuck those 1 v 1 contested 2's. He can shoot the 3, he can drive, dish, rebound and play defense.

Turner is a good rebounder and that is about it. He can't shoot and can't/doesn't pass that well. As far as efficiency, his career TS is 48.5 vs. Felton's 50. The only part of his game that is better than Felton's is rebounding and defense. Felton is better in every other aspect. THAT IS NOT GOOD.

NardDogNation wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:I really like Evan Turner. All I think the guy needs is an opportunity, which he only got when the Sixers were bad. During that stretch, he performed well enough to justify dealing with his growing pains as a young player. Like I said in an earlier post, I could see the guy blowing up like John Salmons did during his half season with the Bulls and Bucks but with a longer shelf-life.

One issue Turner has that he will never be able to fix is that he's not a good athlete. He rarely makes it all the way to the rim and, when he does, he has tough time finishing. This means he has to settle for contested mid-range shots. His pull up J looks nice when it goes in, but he misses more often times than he connects with it. In order for him to be effective, he's going to have to learn to move without the ball, become a better spot up shooter, a more focused defender and learn how to become more of a complementary ball handler. He struggled with all those things when he played alongside Iguadola and Turner with Sixers. e's struggling in that role now with Pacers. I think he could become a good role player but I think there are probably younger, cheaper options out there.

To be fair, Brandon Roy wasn't a particularly stellar athlete but he was effective and allowed to be because he had the ball in his hands from day one. Sometimes we focus too much on what a player can't do, instead of what he can.

Turner is exceptionally long for his position, which will allow him to be a good team/positional defender. He is also a very good rebounder and good ball handler; a commodity in this league because it means that we'll be able to better push the ball off of defensive rebounds, speed up the game's tempo and get more shots in the process. And in spite of his shooting inconsistencies, Turner can still score well enough to not be a liability on the floor. That alone makes him better than anything we have at the 2 guard spot and in the triangle, I think his strength's will shine.

I think Brandon Roy was a much better athlete than you give him credit for. More importantly, a healthy Roy was a heckuva lot better shooter, ball handler and passer than Turner has shown during his career. That's why no one complained when Roy used up so many possessions. Another complaint with Turner is that he doesn't speed the game up, he tends to slow it down with his overdribbling. As far as his scoring, both JR Smith and THJ had better True Shooting and Effective Field Goal percentages than Turner. Turner's shooting percentages are almost identical to Shumpert's. Shumpert was smart enough not to realize that he shouldn't be shooting a lot. I don't see Turner providing an upgrade over what we already have.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I respect your points and recognize them but see the circumstances under which Turner can overcome them. You point to his TS% and eFG% as being an issue but to some extent, those stats are every bit as representative of a player, as it is the team he plays for.

When it comes to the Sixers, they may have been the worst possible fit for Evan and had forced him to play to his weaknesses. They have consistently featured inside-out teams that clog the paint and have had poor floor spacing, which has forced Turner into being more of a jump shooter than he ought to be. On top of that, they have featured a number of guys to be primary ballhandlers when that has been Turner's M.O. since his college days. Because of that, he is unable to find a rhythm or level of comfort on the floor.

Considering the Knicks lack of a primary ball handler and the prowess of the triangle in providing floor spacing and driving lanes, I think Turner could become a big success here (based on what he CAN do). He has his flaws but is also only 25 years old and is smart enough to recognize and improve upon them. If all it takes to get him is money, I'd role the dice.

But why would we want to take inefficient player to see what they CAN do yet haven't?

How about we get players that have already proven that they can play at an efficient level?