Posted by nixluva:

Why all this short term thinking. Gallo wasn't drafted for what he is NOW! He was drafted for what he could become in a few years. You can't look at him as just another SF on this team, cuz you have to know that he's gonna be used for more than that. Forget about true positions with this team except for the PG, just about everyone will be pretty versatile and have to play a couple of positions.

Another thing to remember is that we really didn't have much of a chance to get that PG Mike would want. The guy has high standards obviously and he didn't like anyone in this draft where we picked. I wouldn't want just any PG or Combo guard, so i'm glad they picked Gallo. I feel he was a very good "upside potential" pick.

Once again it's not about this year, but years down the line.

Wait I am confused. I thought you said that Gallinari was taken because he was the BPA now not a potential upside pick like say an Anthony Randolph.

Posted by nixluva:

Why all this short term thinking. Gallo wasn't drafted for what he is NOW! He was drafted for what he could become in a few years. You can't look at him as just another SF on this team, cuz you have to know that he's gonna be used for more than that. Forget about true positions with this team except for the PG, just about everyone will be pretty versatile and have to play a couple of positions.

Another thing to remember is that we really didn't have much of a chance to get that PG Mike would want. The guy has high standards obviously and he didn't like anyone in this draft where we picked. I wouldn't want just any PG or Combo guard, so i'm glad they picked Gallo. I feel he was a very good "upside potential" pick.

Once again it's not about this year, but years down the line.

Pretty much what I myself am getting at.

Why does D'Antoni need to prove anything to this team. This team needs to show him' what they have, otherwise they are out!

That right there shows you what D'Antoni has.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by nixluva:

Why all this short term thinking. Gallo wasn't drafted for what he is NOW! He was drafted for what he could become in a few years. You can't look at him as just another SF on this team, cuz you have to know that he's gonna be used for more than that. Forget about true positions with this team except for the PG, just about everyone will be pretty versatile and have to play a couple of positions.

Another thing to remember is that we really didn't have much of a chance to get that PG Mike would want. The guy has high standards obviously and he didn't like anyone in this draft where we picked. I wouldn't want just any PG or Combo guard, so i'm glad they picked Gallo. I feel he was a very good "upside potential" pick.

Once again it's not about this year, but years down the line.

Wait I am confused. I thought you said that Gallinari was taken because he was the BPA now not a potential upside pick like say an Anthony Randolph.

Predictable response on the Gallinari issue. Some people just cannot except things as they are and move on. I lived in Alabama for a few years and some guys were still not able to come to terms with the fact that the South had lost the Civil War.

BPA can take into consideration many factors, including the player's present level of performance as well as his potential level of performance, and different teams have different ways of determining who the BPA is on their particular draft board. Its not like this is an exact science, you know. Under the right conditions, the BPA can also be exactly the same as a team's "needs pick."

I'm sure Gallinari was drafted because of where his game is at now, but also because of his upside, and where his game might be in the future.

You do understand that you can be the BPA and still have an upside, don't you? You do understand that a young player can have immediately usable skills/abilities, such as the ability to shoot and pass, but still have the ability to improve in some areas of his game, don't you? You do understand that some coaches don't like to rush 20 yr old rookies into immediately playing major roles in their team's rotation- don't you?

I am still predicting, though, that Gallinari will be playing anywhere from 15-30 MPG during the year, and if Randolph is traded, by the end of the year he will be averaging 25+MPG.

Posted by Paladin55:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by nixluva:

Why all this short term thinking. Gallo wasn't drafted for what he is NOW! He was drafted for what he could become in a few years. You can't look at him as just another SF on this team, cuz you have to know that he's gonna be used for more than that. Forget about true positions with this team except for the PG, just about everyone will be pretty versatile and have to play a couple of positions.

Another thing to remember is that we really didn't have much of a chance to get that PG Mike would want. The guy has high standards obviously and he didn't like anyone in this draft where we picked. I wouldn't want just any PG or Combo guard, so i'm glad they picked Gallo. I feel he was a very good "upside potential" pick.

Once again it's not about this year, but years down the line.

Wait I am confused. I thought you said that Gallinari was taken because he was the BPA now not a potential upside pick like say an Anthony Randolph.

Predictable response on the Gallinari issue. Some people just cannot except things as they are and move on. I lived in Alabama for a few years and some guys were still not able to come to terms with the fact that the South had lost the Civil War.

BPA can take into consideration many factors, including the player's present level of performance as well as his potential level of performance, and different teams have different ways of determining who the BPA is on their particular draft board. Its not like this is an exact science, you know. Under the right conditions, the BPA can also be exactly the same as a team's "needs pick."

I'm sure Gallinari was drafted because of where his game is at now, but also because of his upside, and where his game might be in the future.

You do understand that you can be the BPA and still have an upside, don't you? You do understand that a young player can have immediately usable skills/abilities, such as the ability to shoot and pass, but still have the ability to improve in some areas of his game, don't you? You do understand that some coaches don't like to rush 20 yr old rookies into immediately playing major roles in their team's rotation- don't you?

I am still predicting, though, that Gallinari will be playing anywhere from 15-30 MPG during the year, and if Randolph is traded, by the end of the year he will be averaging 25+MPG.

Pretty predictable that you would address the issue by supporting the pick. You like the pick gotcha. I am sorry I didn't realize it was not proper basketball etiquette to be critical of your basketball team after they make their draft pick. What are we debating the Iraq war?

You say he has an upside and can play now. The only issue is that so far I only seen one quarter of decent play for him in a summer league game. So I guess your point is take your word for his abilities and move on. Gotcha. I know you are still in the new phase of the forum but it is still an open forum. I am of the opinion that he doesn't have a huge upside because of his physical limitations and I do not believe he was the BPA when the Knicks drafted. Call it a mistake which wouldn't be the first for this franchise, its scouts, its new president and gm. But please use your vast amount of Gallinari game facts and tapes to illustrate how I am wrong. Until then please forgive me if I hold my opinion until I see him play a complete game without the excuses.

You are free to use to ignore button on this issue with me. Thanks.

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Paladin55:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by nixluva:

Why all this short term thinking. Gallo wasn't drafted for what he is NOW! He was drafted for what he could become in a few years. You can't look at him as just another SF on this team, cuz you have to know that he's gonna be used for more than that. Forget about true positions with this team except for the PG, just about everyone will be pretty versatile and have to play a couple of positions.

Another thing to remember is that we really didn't have much of a chance to get that PG Mike would want. The guy has high standards obviously and he didn't like anyone in this draft where we picked. I wouldn't want just any PG or Combo guard, so i'm glad they picked Gallo. I feel he was a very good "upside potential" pick.

Once again it's not about this year, but years down the line.

Wait I am confused. I thought you said that Gallinari was taken because he was the BPA now not a potential upside pick like say an Anthony Randolph.

Predictable response on the Gallinari issue. Some people just cannot except things as they are and move on. I lived in Alabama for a few years and some guys were still not able to come to terms with the fact that the South had lost the Civil War.

BPA can take into consideration many factors, including the player's present level of performance as well as his potential level of performance, and different teams have different ways of determining who the BPA is on their particular draft board. Its not like this is an exact science, you know. Under the right conditions, the BPA can also be exactly the same as a team's "needs pick."

I'm sure Gallinari was drafted because of where his game is at now, but also because of his upside, and where his game might be in the future.

You do understand that you can be the BPA and still have an upside, don't you? You do understand that a young player can have immediately usable skills/abilities, such as the ability to shoot and pass, but still have the ability to improve in some areas of his game, don't you? You do understand that some coaches don't like to rush 20 yr old rookies into immediately playing major roles in their team's rotation- don't you?

I am still predicting, though, that Gallinari will be playing anywhere from 15-30 MPG during the year, and if Randolph is traded, by the end of the year he will be averaging 25+MPG.

Pretty predictable that you would address the issue by supporting the pick. You like the pick gotcha. I am sorry I didn't realize it was not proper basketball etiquette to be critical of your basketball team after they make their draft pick. What are we debating the Iraq war?

You say he has an upside and can play now. The only issue is that so far I only seen one quarter of decent play for him in a summer league game. So I guess your point is take your word for his abilities and move on. Gotcha. I know you are still in the new phase of the forum but it is still an open forum. I am of the opinion that he doesn't have a huge upside because of his physical limitations and I do not believe he was the BPA when the Knicks drafted. Call it a mistake which wouldn't be the first for this franchise, its scouts, its new president and gm. But please use your vast amount of Gallinari game facts and tapes to illustrate how I am wrong. Until then please forgive me if I hold my opinion until I see him play a complete game without the excuses.

You are free to use to ignore button on this issue with me. Thanks.

The point I took from your comment was that somehow a player has to be near his peak playing level in year one for him to be the BPA. BPA is a relative term. BPA in the draft when compared to the other players left in the draft. BPA does not indicate what that players upside is, tho it assumes that there should be good upside with the player as you would expect of any rookie.

IMO the only thing you could have against Gallo is that he doesn't jump out of the gym, cuz he does a lot of other things very well. He's got good size and a good frame. He's likely to get a bit taller and he's got very good ball skills and agility for his size. In a thinking mans game like Mike's system he should do very well. His high BB IQ and composure for such a young guy have been evident in his Euro play so it's reasonable to assume that he shouldn't lose those qualities upon entering the NBA.

To me his physical limitations will be huge if he was a SF. The problem I have with Walsh, are they are going make this kid something that he is not. Leading up to the draft, he was projected as a SG/SF, now he is going to be a PF. I have serious doubts that this guy is capable of playing the 4 spot in the eastern conference for a long duration (had this thought before his SL game and back trouble). His lack of defensive skills bother me a lot since I thought the team needed to draft two way players and not just offensive players. I strongly disagree with this notion that Euro play translate into the NBA with little ease. From most Euro players I heard about the change is that it is a difficult one. Also scouting reports that I read about Gallinari is that he struggles offensively against stronger players and teams that tend to play more man to man defense.

Just my takes. I think this is the key, and there's nothing wrong with it, with Mike D'Antoni. He absolutely needs a smart, talented, team first/pass first (Yet can still score when he needs) PG. Maybe not nescessarily top tier, but he needs that type in order for the system to be run. Nothing wrong with it. Phil Jackson needs his Kobe/MJ, Pat Riley needs his Zo/Ewing/Shaq and the upcoming Byron Scott appears to need his Jason Kidd/Chris Paul. Without those types of players, none of those coaches would be successful.

So we're gonna need to go out and find one of these guys. No shadow of doubt. In the meantime, I think we're going to be better by DEFAULT, b/c we have Chris Duhon. Not because he's a star or maybe even a very good player. More so because he's a PG who passes first and plays tough D against the first guy normally touching the ball. That's going to put less pressure on Jamal and allow him to play his more natural position (Doesn't have to worry about setting people up all the time) and the TOs will be down significantly. If people don't remember, we couldn't run an offense for crap the last few years, because we had shooting guards doing that, who don't know how to play PG. At least Duhon balances things up a little bit.

We're still not maybe even a 40 win team, but the offense is more respectable. Our frontcourt defense is abyssmal though, and we're going nowhere with what we have there. Somebody is 2 people are going to have to go.

I think this is gonna be a very fun year. We'll get to see Mike change the entire focus and spirit of the team and we'll start to see the process of turning this team over to a much higher BB IQ team over the next few years. Waltoni will identify who is right for this team and who has to go and we'll see them retool the roster with players we can win with.

A shorter rotation that includes our BEST players is another thing to look forward to. Chan, Gallo, Nate, Jamal, Lee and Duhon will figure heavily into this. The key will be who else they choose to round out the final 2 spots. Will both Zach and Curry stay or will we see Zach moved out?

Interesting diagram on a Blog showing D'Antoni's offensive strategy. I can't get the graph to show so you'll have to click on the URL.


http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2008/09/03/indexed-how-coach-dantoni-views-offense/

Perhaps the best comment:

I wonder what the shape of the curve is. Linear? Nah - no way is 24 seconds on the shot clock the most efficient - unless you think lobbing full court shots or sending court lenght inbound passes is efficient. I reckon in D’Antonis offense it starts somewhere near zero at 24 seconds to go, rises to maximum in the 20-15 range, and then tails off.

Also, I reckon there’s be a second peak. After realising with say 18 seconds left that the fast break isn’t on, the D’Antoni teams will run an offensive set. Say that goes for 10 seconds, I reckon there’d be some sort of mini-peak at about the 8 minute mark.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Paladin55:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by nixluva:

Why all this short term thinking. Gallo wasn't drafted for what he is NOW! He was drafted for what he could become in a few years. You can't look at him as just another SF on this team, cuz you have to know that he's gonna be used for more than that. Forget about true positions with this team except for the PG, just about everyone will be pretty versatile and have to play a couple of positions.

Another thing to remember is that we really didn't have much of a chance to get that PG Mike would want. The guy has high standards obviously and he didn't like anyone in this draft where we picked. I wouldn't want just any PG or Combo guard, so i'm glad they picked Gallo. I feel he was a very good "upside potential" pick.

Once again it's not about this year, but years down the line.

Wait I am confused. I thought you said that Gallinari was taken because he was the BPA now not a potential upside pick like say an Anthony Randolph.

Predictable response on the Gallinari issue. Some people just cannot except things as they are and move on. I lived in Alabama for a few years and some guys were still not able to come to terms with the fact that the South had lost the Civil War.

BPA can take into consideration many factors, including the player's present level of performance as well as his potential level of performance, and different teams have different ways of determining who the BPA is on their particular draft board. Its not like this is an exact science, you know. Under the right conditions, the BPA can also be exactly the same as a team's "needs pick."

I'm sure Gallinari was drafted because of where his game is at now, but also because of his upside, and where his game might be in the future.

You do understand that you can be the BPA and still have an upside, don't you? You do understand that a young player can have immediately usable skills/abilities, such as the ability to shoot and pass, but still have the ability to improve in some areas of his game, don't you? You do understand that some coaches don't like to rush 20 yr old rookies into immediately playing major roles in their team's rotation- don't you?

I am still predicting, though, that Gallinari will be playing anywhere from 15-30 MPG during the year, and if Randolph is traded, by the end of the year he will be averaging 25+MPG.

Pretty predictable that you would address the issue by supporting the pick. You like the pick gotcha. I am sorry I didn't realize it was not proper basketball etiquette to be critical of your basketball team after they make their draft pick. What are we debating the Iraq war?

You say he has an upside and can play now. The only issue is that so far I only seen one quarter of decent play for him in a summer league game. So I guess your point is take your word for his abilities and move on. Gotcha. I know you are still in the new phase of the forum but it is still an open forum. I am of the opinion that he doesn't have a huge upside because of his physical limitations and I do not believe he was the BPA when the Knicks drafted. Call it a mistake which wouldn't be the first for this franchise, its scouts, its new president and gm. But please use your vast amount of Gallinari game facts and tapes to illustrate how I am wrong. Until then please forgive me if I hold my opinion until I see him play a complete game without the excuses.

You are free to use to ignore button on this issue with me. Thanks.

New, but not a kid, my friend. In my classroom, if a student were to constantly bring up the same argument over and over again during discussions after the issue had been discussed over and over again, I would try to move the discussion along.

Yeah, I know this is an open forum. You also have the right to ignore anything I write, too, but I am going to come back at you if I think it appropriate.

I admit that I liked the pick, and you can make a case for and against the Knicks' opinion that he was the BPA. My only issue is that the pick was made and you cannot do anything about it at this point. If they had taken another player I would have accepted it and lived, and been thinking about how that player would fit in with the Knicks. Criticizing/predicting how he might play is one thing- going back and looking at the draft is another. Just put the argument down as your "signature" so it will always be visible when you post.

I can give you criticism of EVERY player in the top 15, and probably make a case for most of them too. I consider it legit to criticize Gallinari's skills set and how it fits into D'Antoni's system, but going back and complaining about the pick at this time is somewhat pointless,

Some draft analysts actually considered him a "safe" pick because of his game and experience- which indicates that they thought he could play well in the NBA. He was not a Renaldo Balkman or Fredrick Weiss pick.

You said it yourself- you need to see him play before before evaluating him. You got a small glimpse of him, and actually saw him do some pretty special things after looking like a 16 year old the first half. Now is the time to listen to reporters about what he is doing in training camp, and watch him in exhibition and regular season games and make our own judgments about him as a player.

As I have said before, you will have plenty of time to crucify the pick of Gallinari in the future if he turns out to be a stiff.

Posted by Bippity10:

I'm with Paladin on this. I can understand someone not liking the pick. I can understand someone wishing we had gone in another direction. But to say it's a mistake before any of the rookies play a minute I think is going a step beyond. The pick has been made, agree with it or not, now it's time to wait and see and hope.

What would sports fans do without being able to make predictions/declarations of "reality" based on "feeling" rather than evidence?

Leave that evidence stuff to academics.