Posted by rvwink:

There are players that have both size and athleticism, and never fulfill their potential. There are other talents that are also required, and when you look at Mullen's lack of production, I think it is too much of a leap to spend a #8 draft pick on him. I also don't think your calling my post BS is what I would call "good form". Somebody doesn't agree with you and your response is to call their opinion BS? Do you sincerely believe that your opinion the only one with merit?

On the other hand, its really hard to find prospects at #8 that I like this year. I don't like Evans because he has a tendency to need to dominate the ball. I don't like Flynn because his 3 point shooting is at a relatively low percentage. The writeup on Derozan was also not appealing to me either. Too much written about his athletic talents and not enough about his production. But at least you are consistent. I guess if I have to pick someone, I would end up going with Stephen Curry.

"Evans Derozan Mullens and Flynn--lets see how stupid I look in a couple of years."

Unfortunately, how they look in a couple of years, doesn't really prove anything concerning how they would fare on the Knicks. Picking players that will fit in with the Mike D'Antoni system is what is needed.

rvwink--who was freshmen of the year in the big ten?
who set a freshmen record and led the league in FG%?
Michigan State made it to the final game

Mullens played against them 3 times

averages 13.3 points 6 rebounds 1.7 blocks in 22 minutes a game

Purdue--lead the nation in FG% defense

Mullens in 3 games shot 12-15 for 80%

Big East match up with Notre Dame 18 minutes 11 points 7 rebounds

Games where he had atleast 8 FGA[which is big in my book]

9 games averages
14.3 points 6.9 rebounds 1.6 blocks FG% 68.4% in 24.6 minutes per game [just the facts--when BJ Mullens had 8 or more FGA he was a dominant type player in limited minutes]

So when this player was given opportunity--not only did he produce--he produced incredibly efficiently and his numbers per minute are off the charts good for a freshmen. And this is all against top flight comp. Ohio State really was a perimeter-based team and he was used a lot as a guy who would run around the baseline setting picks and I think there were many games the guards did a POOR jon getting him the ball. But you asked for production and I just spelled it out for you--if he had the minutes and the FGAs --its bottom line production. Now think about how those numbers go up when he is 10 pounds stronger and getting 35 minutes with 14-16 FGAs a game. Yes sir think about it.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by TMS:

why not try & trade up 2 slots to take him at #6?

We don't have crp to move up and it doesnt guarantee anything. BJ Mullens would be a top 3 pick by next year--getting him at 8 is a steal. He's perfect for this system up front because he'll be afforded all of that space and he's a great finisher. Look at the NBA--its imperative to have a good 5. We need a big man--this is a guy who has the combination package of size and athletic ability. He has showed when they made him a solid part of the offense that he thrived against the top comp. This is a guy we will be crying about if we miss out. We havent been smart drafting up top--maybe they will see the light. Or we can stay perpetually small and stay in the lottery every year as teams get bigger. You're not going to lose taking Mullens--it's a savvy choice.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by rvwink:

Common Sense?

Common sense suggests that you avoid focusing only on how athletic a player is, and how badly you need an upgrade at the position he plays. A significant part of your evaluation should be certified on the player's production when he played, how strong his motor is, and how high his basketball IQ is. I feel strongly that Mullen is simply not the right answer for the Knicks this year.

That's BS--you cant teach size and athleticism and it's pretty rare to have both. You have to use prognostication when evaluating a very young player--simply you do NOT have enough information to make a reasonable evaluation off of 1 year--you have to have the ability to project. What you are saying is Mullens basketball growth stopped at 10 points and 5 rebounds as a freshmen 18 year old and thats not the case. Thats why the NY Knicks cant draft well and they are arrogant enough to let it continue. Thats why we take Gallinaris over Randolphs and Fryes over Bynums

Lets be real--the Knicks organization has been brutal in the draft for a long time with a little saving grace late in the first round.

I like 4 players in this draft where the Knicks are[obviously we are not getting guys 1-7]-- Evans Derozan Mullens and Flynn--lets see how stupid I look in a couple of years. Unfortunately I think it is very possible Evans and Derozan are part of the top 7 That leaves me with Flynn and Mullens

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by rvwink:

Common Sense?

Common sense suggests that you avoid focusing only on how athletic a player is, and how badly you need an upgrade at the position he plays. A significant part of your evaluation should be certified on the player's production when he played, how strong his motor is, and how high his basketball IQ is. I feel strongly that Mullen is simply not the right answer for the Knicks this year.

That's BS--you cant teach size and athleticism and it's pretty rare to have both. You have to use prognostication when evaluating a very young player--simply you do NOT have enough information to make a reasonable evaluation off of 1 year--you have to have the ability to project. What you are saying is Mullens basketball growth stopped at 10 points and 5 rebounds as a freshmen 18 year old and thats not the case. Thats why the NY Knicks cant draft well and they are arrogant enough to let it continue. Thats why we take Gallinaris over Randolphs and Fryes over Bynums

Lets be real--the Knicks organization has been brutal in the draft for a long time with a little saving grace late in the first round.

I like 4 players in this draft where the Knicks are[obviously we are not getting guys 1-7]-- Evans Derozan Mullens and Flynn--lets see how stupid I look in a couple of years. Unfortunately I think it is very possible Evans and Derozan are part of the top 7 That leaves me with Flynn and Mullens

cant teach work ethic and desire either. The guy was a backup on an above average team. Size and athleticism doesnt get you half of what work ethic and heart does. Kurt Thomas is going to have a better career and bigger impact than Eddy Curry. What does that tell you about size and athleticism????

From what I know about these players I would rather have the kid from Pitt

When they involved him with the offense--the results were very good--in fact per minute they are better than any player in the draft not named Griffin.

Games where he had atleast 8 FGA[which is big in my book]

9 games averages
14.3 points 6.9 rebounds 1.6 blocks FG% 68.4% in 24.6 minutes per game [just the facts--when BJ Mullens had 8 or more FGA he was a dominant type player in limited minutes] per 36 minutes---21.4 10.45 2.4--only playing time held the player back from much bigger numbers. Perhaps this is due to the coach holding him back a tad to try and keep him the next year?

So when this player was given opportunity--not only did he produce--he produced incredibly efficiently and his numbers per minute are off the charts good for a freshmen. And this is all against top flight comp. Ohio State really was a perimeter-based team and he was used a lot as a guy who would run around the baseline setting picks and I think there were many games the guards did a POOR jon getting him the ball. But you asked for production and I just spelled it out for you--if he had the minutes and the FGAs --its bottom line production. Now think about how those numbers go up when he is 10 pounds stronger and getting 35 minutes with 14-16 FGAs a game. Yes sir think about it.

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 05-07-2009 08:50 AM]

Posted by BRIGGS:



Games where he had atleast 8 FGA[which is big in my book]

9 games averages
14.3 points 6.9 rebounds 1.6 blocks FG% 68.4% in 24.6 minutes per game [just the facts--when BJ Mullens had 8 or more FGA he was a dominant type player in limited minutes] per 36 minutes---21.4 10.45 2.4--only playing time held the player back from much bigger numbers. Perhaps this is due to the coach holding him back a tad to try and keep him the next year?

So when this player was given opportunity--not only did he produce--he produced incredibly efficiently and his numbers per minute are off the charts good for a freshmen. And this is all against top flight comp. Ohio State really was a perimeter-based team and he was used a lot as a guy who would run around the baseline setting picks and I think there were many games the guards did a POOR jon getting him the ball. But you asked for production and I just spelled it out for you--if he had the minutes and the FGAs --its bottom line production. Now think about how those numbers go up when he is 10 pounds stronger and getting 35 minutes with 14-16 FGAs a game. Yes sir think about it.

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 05-07-2009 08:50 AM]

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by BRIGGS:



Games where he had atleast 8 FGA[which is big in my book]

9 games averages
14.3 points 6.9 rebounds 1.6 blocks FG% 68.4% in 24.6 minutes per game [just the facts--when BJ Mullens had 8 or more FGA he was a dominant type player in limited minutes] per 36 minutes---21.4 10.45 2.4--only playing time held the player back from much bigger numbers. Perhaps this is due to the coach holding him back a tad to try and keep him the next year?

So when this player was given opportunity--not only did he produce--he produced incredibly efficiently and his numbers per minute are off the charts good for a freshmen. And this is all against top flight comp. Ohio State really was a perimeter-based team and he was used a lot as a guy who would run around the baseline setting picks and I think there were many games the guards did a POOR jon getting him the ball. But you asked for production and I just spelled it out for you--if he had the minutes and the FGAs --its bottom line production. Now think about how those numbers go up when he is 10 pounds stronger and getting 35 minutes with 14-16 FGAs a game. Yes sir think about it.

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 05-07-2009 08:50 AM]

I think you can definitely look at it the other way where he didn't assert himself enough and that's why he wasn't as involved in those games.

You don't think Thad Motta would be playing this guy 25 minutes a night if he didn't have a reason not to?

I watched a lot of their games. I would say my immediate concern with him would be on the defensive end where he certainly has a lot of room for improvement but he has everything on his side to correct that part of his game. When you are 7-1--it's all about understanding how to use your body effectively--knowing when to stay on your feet--keeping good position--when to help/hedge and ultimately boxing out your man for the rebound. Thats easy to teach stuff. The big part is already taken care of--he's 7-1 270.

On the offensive end they used him to set picks way too much--it seemed like on almost every possession his primary option was setting a pick on the baseline and then finding his own position. It seemed like he was setting 2-3 picks in each halfcourt possession and you won't get your own solid position that way. I think a big reason why he didnt get enough FGA's was the team did not really aheva primary PG yet was very perimeter-based and they made BJ set a lot of screens--nothing wrong with that--but I do think when you look at the numbers and watched the games--they did a VERY poor job of getting him the ball--especially many times when he did have position. Numbers don't lie---you are talking 14.3 points 7 rebounds nearly 2 blocks shooting 68% in only 24 minutes when he was more involved with the offense. I just think it will be an awful mistake at 8 in a really poor draft to NOT grab a kid who's upside trumps almost everyone in the draft. He's not a gamble pick--if he works hard and stays injury free he will be very good. Were perpetually smallish and that has been one of the primary reason we have scked.

Oh well-maybe when Im back we will have won the lottery anyway--no sense arguing who we should take when we dont know for certain where we are picking. Ill see you dudes in a few weeks.

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 05-07-2009 1:49 PM]

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 05-07-2009 2:03 PM]