Listen, I'm definitely not the biggest fan of the Jordan Hill pick - I would have taken a few different guys, but whatever that's just me. With that being said, I was encouraged by Hill two nights ago against the Nets. He only scored 6 points but he was very active out on the court, had a very nice putback slam and played the passing lanes and the lowblock very well, better than I expected.

I do think it's going to take him a while before we can say definitively whether or not hes going to be a good player but I think his ceiling is pretty high, as well as his bust-potential - if that makes sense. The one thing you can say about the guy is that he's out there trying hard and alot of his problems stem from playing the game too fast, you would think that'll go away with due time but we'll see.

I'm not as sour on him as I was when we drafted him, but I still would have rathered a guy like DeRozan or Jennings, but whatever.

I don't know how he's going to develop. He won't even get on the floor.

The one position where we have a lot of players is the power forward.

Honestly I feel like Donnie is trying to draft complimentary players that he thinks will work well with LeBron in the future.

He's not going to give you 15 and 9 this season, I think the expectations need to come down to reality.

Lee gave 5 and 4 in his rookie season. Look for Hill to put up the same.

Seems to me like Jordan has big upside and even though he was picked at the 8 spot, his potential could be worth much more to the Knicks down the road than a rotation guy picked at 8. It depends on the individual. I can see his potential and really hope he turns into the player DW thinks he can be (a big who brings heavy doses of athleticism, size, stroke, and defensive tenacity). The basketball IQ stuff should come in time. He's a noob at the moment. Just b/c a guy is picked top-ten doesn't mean he has to be ready to go day one.

If he turns out to be a bust, well then it's a bad pick. We're not there yet.

[Edited by - Moonangie on 10-23-2009 10:47 AM]

As for his build thats just silly. Lots of guys in the league are long and wirey and are great players. He's 6'10 with a 7'2 wingspan and 9' standing reach. He's got a 35' vert and tested very well in the bench. In three years of CBB (5 years of org ball total) he went from unskilled bench player to one of the best bigs in CBB. His stats are meaningful because they represent a couple things: 1) massive improvement over a 3 year period and 2) #s that show your dominating your current level of competition. 18/11/2blocks on 54% FGs for a guy still learning the game isnt something thats meaningless.

That's probably the most impressive part about him. Hopefully he does the same thing here. But that says a lot about his work ethic to me.

Seems to me like Jordan has big upside and even though he was picked at the 8 spot, his potential could be worth much more to the Knicks down the road than a rotation guy picked at 8. It depends on the individual. I can see his potential and really hope he turns into the player DW thinks he can be (a big who brings heavy doses of athleticism, size, stroke, and defensive tenacity). The basketball IQ stuff should come in time. He's a noob at the moment. Just b/c a guy is picked top-ten doesn't mean he has to be ready to go day one.

If he turns out to be a bust, well then it's a bad pick. We're not there yet.

He is a guy capable of scoring pts off PnRs, PnPs, Transition, as well as looks with his back to the basket or facing up isolation 10 feet from the basket. He has the quickness and jumper to be able to do those things. He needs more strength though for his back to basket game and interior defense. I am a little disappointed about his rebounding though. If he isn't comfortable with everything else yet he could at least find a role as a strong rebounder until he gets used to the NBA game and speed.

Jordan's fundamentals are horrendous. Watch how he performs in the pick and roll. It's pretty bad. I think he rolls before there is any contact with the defender. He also has inconsistent footwork(sometimes it's actually pretty good and better than all of our big men) and has no balance(bends at the waste like Michael Sweetney used to do) when he makes his moves. Combine that with his lack of physical strength and guess what.....Mike is playing to his strength right now. His strength is his jumper.

Over time you will see him go to the post. Let's not pretend that Mike never goes to the post up. There's this myth that D'Antoni did not use Shaq, but if you look at the numbers, he was utilized as much as he was the year before. Now over the course of his development Hill will be asked to develop a post up game and a perimeter game. This versatility will make him a better player. the reason I'm not down on the guy is not because he's been good, but because he's already proven that he can pick up the college game in a short period of time. It makes it silly to say he can't pick up the pro game as well. He himself is envisioning this year as his freshman year and is using that as a baseline for his development.

The game is simply to fast for him right now. It's going to take some time for him to get used to the on the fly decision making. To me the good news is that this has been the main reason for his mistakes. Strip that away, and the guy does have a strong base skillset that many are ignoring right now.

Posted by King1:

Hill isnt very good and we should have traded down or trade the pick for next year. Thus draft was horrible and it shows with a horrible team like the Knicks taking a kid that will play 5 minutes a game this year.

Show a great deal of prescience on your part when you can categorically say someone "isn't very good" without considering where he is in terms of understanding the game at this point, and where he may be in 1/2/3/4 years down the road. None of us have any idea about how long it will take Hill to develop, or if he even will become the player the Knicks envisioned when they drafted him, but you might want to wait before making your pronouncements.

Look at your own boy, Lee. He has gone from being a good rebounder/ poor to average defender who can't hit a jumper or a foul shot with consistency, to a guy who is a good rebounder/poor to average defender who can hit a foul shot but not a jumper, to a player who is a very good rebounder/poor to average defender who can hit his foul shots with consistency and keep opponents honest with a very nice above average jumper. He even increased his steals to 1/game. (Maybe his next challenge will be to develop a better game in the post and play some better D down there.)

Lee had a better BB IQ and understanding of the game than Hill when he came into this league, but still had some major deficiencies when he started in the NBA. Hell, it took him 4 years to get a jump shot, but it finally game around.

Has his game changed? Has he improved on some of his weaknesses? Is Lee the only player whose game will ever evolve?

Time will tell whether or not Hill was worth the pick, and the only thing I can say is now is not that time.

Posted by CrushAlot:

I agree with Finn and Franco about MDA not being flexible. I saw Hill in the Summer League and I have been surprised how so many people are on him especially after the 08 draft. The 09 draft was considered very weak, similar to the K-Mart, Mike Miller draft. Hill was a very reasonable pick that might turn out to be quite a bit more. My issue is with the Gallo pick. He will never live up to his draft status and that draft class is considered one of the best ever. The Knicks were a 23 win team and could have had a franchise talent and instead ended up with a shooter with the 6th pick who fits the coaches system and still can't crack the rotation. In addition reports that at least the Nets were aware of a back injury prior to the draft have never been refuted. I am fine with criticizing Walsh and analyzing his drafts but I think his big blunder shouldn't be ignored.

Deja-vu all over again?

Did you dig up the second half of this post from August 2008??

Posted by franco12:

Why don't have Hill be our PG? Duhon sucks.

Fail.

Hopefully Hill doesn't win the same award Gallo got from Dime Magazine last spring.

2009 / 10:00 am
Dime’s 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year
By Dime Magazine


Derrick Rose, Dime #32
With 82 games in the books and the playoffs getting started this weekend, Dime presents our ‘08-09 NBA regular-season awards. These are the consensus picks from our editorial team; not necessarily who we think is going to win, but who we think should win.

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: DERRICK ROSE

In voting for sports awards, nobody likes the easy choice. (For the most part, that is. Handing an ESPY to somebody like J-Mac makes everyone feel good.) We all like unearthing the diamond in the rough, thinking outside the box, and looking like a genius next to the clowns at rival publications. When picks come along that are too easy, it’s almost like it makes you look lazy.

So as we picked this year’s NBA awards, Rookie of the Year wasn’t fun. Derrick Rose did everything that could have been expected of him and more: Starting from Day One at the toughest position in the League, he took an ‘08 Lottery team to the ‘09 playoffs (and not as one of those sub-.500 eighth seeds) while making himself a fixture on the nightly highlight reel. Rose averaged 16.8 points and 6.3 assists, leading all rookies in dimes and finishing second in scoring.

There were other rookies who put up better numbers in some categories, but none had the impact on their team’s fortunes like Rose did on the Bulls. He was his team’s MVP, and rightfully should win R.O.Y. almost unanimously.

* DIME’S ALL-ROOKIE TEAM *
G - Derrick Rose, Chicago
G - O.J. Mayo, Memphis
F - Michael Beasley, Miami
F - Kevin Love, Minnesota
C - Brook Lopez, New Jersey
Bench - Russell Westbrook (OKC), Eric Gordon (LAC), Marc Gasol (MEM), Jason Thompson (SAC), Mario Chalmers (MIA).

* DIME’S ANTI-ROOKIE OF THE YEAR *
Danilo Gallinari, New York

To me there's no comparison between the early struggles of Gallinari and Hill. Gallo's in the right position on the floor to do his thing, Hill's not. That's the key difference. Gallo belongs exactly where he is - out on the perimeter ready to shoot the ball or ready to put it on the floor and try to either get by people if they get too close or create for others. Going by the Euro. clips, those seem to be his strengths -- 3 pt. shooting touch, handle, aggressiveness, creativity, passing - all in a 6'11" body. That's his bread & butter. He's shown he can post up a little bit and I think it's a good idea for him to further incorporate that into his game (you can never be too versatile) but I'm comfortable with his positioning on the floor. I don't think that's his problem. There are other factors at work - the injury had obviously slowed him. Now said to be fully recovered however, we'll see if he can find himself again. I definitely don't seen Gallo playing out of his element out on the court though. He's where he needs to be. He needs to prove to himself that he's healthy, learn to trust his body like he once did and continue to get comfortable with the NBA style, his teammates and continue to improve his confidence. Gallo also has his coach continually singing his praises, unlike Hill..

Hill on the other hand has no business even being out that deep -- he's got a solid shooting touch but he's not a 3 pt. shooter, he's not a ball-handler nor a creative Milicic-type passer that far away from the hoop. Also, last I checked, you can't post up anyone 25' from the hoop and you're also not gonna get many rebounds being out that high. Plus, when a big interior player's that far out of his element position-wise, he's more apt to make mistakes as we've seen. The only time I've ever seen Hill operating out that high in college it was by design to work a play for him -- he'd come out high to set a pick and immediately roll to the basket where Wise or Fogg would hit him with a quick pass for a score - similar to what Lee does with Duhon. I haven't seen that yet with the Knicks.

[Edited by - finestrg on 10-24-2009 08:53 AM]