Paladin55 wrote:

playa2 wrote:Which Sophomore would you rather have:
Michael Beasley or Danilo Gallinari?

Abbott: Beasley might be one of the only potential future MVPs who can be had on the cheap. But Gallinari is one of the biggest and best spot-up shooters in NBA history, and he plays some D, too. Any team could use a guy like that. Another question: What's more likely to go haywire: Gallinari's back or Beasley's judgment?

Broussard: Beasley. His talent is greater than Gallinari's and though he's got a long way to go, he's showing signs of maturity. Gallinari's a great shooter, but Beasley's got more versatility.

Ford: Beasley. He's a more complete player. He rebounds, he can score inside and he doesn't have a bad back.

Hollinger: Beasley. Gallinari is a better shooter, but Beasley is the better athlete and has more ways to develop his game in the future. Additionally, there's the issue of Gallinari's back. Gallo will be a great shooter for many years, but Beasley is the only one of the two with All-NBA potential.

Sheridan: Beasley. I'll take the multidimensional player over the one-trick specialist every time, and it's a bonus that Beasley can shoot 3s, too. Plus, Gallinari gets attacked every night on defense.

Sheridan see's what I see , not the majority of posters here, also Sheridan has no bias.

Sheridan may be unbaised, but has also failed to watch any Knicks games, it would seem, and may not have seen much of Beasley, either.

Kind of interesting that not one of those interviewed commented on Beasley's D, which is spotty at best, and negligent at worst, or noted that the "6'10"" Beasley is supposed to be a PF, but rarely blocks a shot and is rarely a presence in the post when on D, while Gallinari has been supplying both of these things to the Knicks.

Beasley is probably the best scorer to come out of his draft, but he has a lot of holes in his game, and also, it would seem, in his head.

The real question should have been: Which sophomore would you rather have- Lopez or Beasley, because Lopez would have been a made to order fit for Miami-the perfect big man companion for Wade.

that is what I was thinking.. How much of the knicks do these clowns watch?

And the 6'10 beasley is more like the 6'8 beasley... LOL

EnySpree wrote:You guys over do it with the Playa bashing....its a decent topic...and its not like the comments were his in the first post....its the opinion of nba writers. Which don't mean anything more than what we say here.

Anyway, Beasley is a more natural scorer but the guy has yet to figure out the fact he has teamates and coach that has a game plan he needs forfilled. Gallo is the exact opposite...Gallo is a natural shooter that can do everything else well but not great. Gallo is a good team player almost to a fault.

Potential??? Well everyone has a hard on cuz of what Beasley did in college. So far Beasley has been exposed in the NBA. He's learning the game now, so that knowledge is trying to catch up to the talent...He could become a 20pt scorer or he can stay where he is at now...its 50-50. Gallo has pro experience so his knowledge of the game is far more advanced. Gallo can also become a 20pt scorer or he can stay where he is. History has proven you don't need to be an off the scale athlete to be a huge threat in this league. Gallo's potential is on that same 50-50 range Beasley is on.....and thats as real as it can get.

I can accept your evaluation because you HAVE seen them both play based on what you write- some of the guys quoted have clearly not made an analysis based on watching both guys play.

Paladin55 wrote:

EnySpree wrote:You guys over do it with the Playa bashing....its a decent topic...and its not like the comments were his in the first post....its the opinion of nba writers. Which don't mean anything more than what we say here.

Anyway, Beasley is a more natural scorer but the guy has yet to figure out the fact he has teamates and coach that has a game plan he needs forfilled. Gallo is the exact opposite...Gallo is a natural shooter that can do everything else well but not great. Gallo is a good team player almost to a fault.

Potential??? Well everyone has a hard on cuz of what Beasley did in college. So far Beasley has been exposed in the NBA. He's learning the game now, so that knowledge is trying to catch up to the talent...He could become a 20pt scorer or he can stay where he is at now...its 50-50. Gallo has pro experience so his knowledge of the game is far more advanced. Gallo can also become a 20pt scorer or he can stay where he is. History has proven you don't need to be an off the scale athlete to be a huge threat in this league. Gallo's potential is on that same 50-50 range Beasley is on.....and thats as real as it can get.

Legit topic from a poster whose intent is to be provocative. No real argument on his part- he is basically saying "These guys are experts- you must believe what they say." In logic, we would call the fallacy of his "argument" an "appeal to authority." In his case he starts his argument by trotting out some "authorities" to support his position, without actually looking critically at the arguments of the guys he is using to backup his position, and not using any of his own comments to support his assertion. Not to mention that he provides no context for the information he presents, or a link for us to read the entire article.

You know what young people call that, Mr. Paladin? A hater.

Andrew wrote:Beasley and Rose were considered the 2 can't miss prospects in that draft. He should be rated higher than Gallo. I don't know what the deal is here.

They should have been asked about Beasley vs Lopez. Gallinari was never a thought in the minds of the Heat brass, but you have to think that Lopez, at the very least, would have been discussed prior to the draft.

For what the Heat needed then, and need now, Lopez would have been the perfect choice for them over Beasley, who at 6'8" (with shoes)is essentially a power small forward, who can rebound, has a great midrange and inside game, but can't hit the 3, maintain the flow of the offense through his passes, or defend.

Bippity10 wrote:beasley has more potential then Gallo? Duh. Isn't that why he was picked number 2 and could have just as easily been picked number one. Was Gallo ever considered a number one pick. This is a dumb question.

Thats what I came in here to say...

Compare him to players that were picked around or after him. Whats the point of all this?

nyk4ever wrote:what the hell is this supposed to prove. Playa, I like you, but this crap you keep posting is just pure stupidity. Get your head out of your ass and stop trying to prove to everyone that the Knicks picked Gallo solely because he's white.

We picked him because gallo's dad and dantoni our buddies and he wanted the guy on the knicks team as a shooter .

There aren't to many guys like gallanari so we picked him. I guarantee you if dantoni wasn't our coach we would have taken another player.

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:
passing. big man who can dribble.

Gallinari is a good passer but it really isn't a "dimension" of his game. Chris Duhon gets a few rebounds a game but it really isn't a "dimension" of his game, you see what I am saying?

Dribbling: This has to be the most overrated part of Gallinari's game. He doesn't crack ankles off the dribble like reputed. He has an okay handle, enough so that he does not get himself in trouble, but again this is not a "dimension" of his game. He dribbles as much as he has to then he giove the ball to a real ball handler (Smartly)You want to see similar sized players who really have a dribbling dimension? Check out old footage of Van Horn or Gugliotta, Zach Randolph, Turkoglu, even the Italian in Toronto.

I think Turkoglu is a decent ball handler. But you site those other guys? And mention just before that something about breaking ankles, like that has anything to do with big men and ball handling? And all of those other guys also hand off the ball to a real ball handlers.

I seem to recall more than 1 occasion this year where Gallo stole the ball and took it the length of the court for dunks.

Van Horn, Gugliotta, and Randolph all did/do create off the dribble regularly by taking their man off isolation. All of them could/can go between the legs, 'round the back, spin moves etc. All of those players can dribble well enough to initiate the offense regularly. I have not seen that from Gallinari.

Getting a steal and dribbling in a straight line for a dunk is nice but that is not a special feat at the NBA level. Some 6'10" guys can do it and some can't but being able to do it does not make one a "ball handler". I've seen Elden Campbell do that. Gallinari is a much better ball-handler than cambell, but my point is a lot of tall players can dribble the length of the court and dunk. Gallinari is almost a Donyell Marshall level ball-handler.

oohah

Oohah, they have there eyes closed to the facts you just presented.

Andrew wrote:Beasley and Rose were considered the 2 can't miss prospects in that draft. He should be rated higher than Gallo. I don't know what the deal is here.

Agreed. But here's the rub: Beasley is considered a tweener and Gallo has had a better career thus far. Beasley is considered to have a brighter future--Gallo has had a better career thus far during their brief stints in the NBA

oohah wrote:I honestly don't think that Gallinari has earned as many shots as he takes. What if Beasley was featured in the same way? What might he be scoring?

Gallo averages about 10.8 attemps a game. Beasley gets 13.5. I'm no math major but I think if Beasley attempted 10 a game instead of 13.5 his average would be lower.

Andrew wrote:

oohah wrote:I honestly don't think that Gallinari has earned as many shots as he takes. What if Beasley was featured in the same way? What might he be scoring?

Gallo averages about 10.8 attemps a game. Beasley gets 13.5. I'm no math major but I think if Beasley attempted 10 a game instead of 13.5 his average would be lower.

I think you'll see that Gallinari has cracked 11 shots per game after today.

Andrew, I am talking about the type of shots taken because of the coaching system and the number of shots earned. Beasley is shooting mainly 2 pointers and getting a decent number of his shots from rebounds and around the basket play as opposed to the almost 100% of Gallinari's shots from long-range shooting. Shooting 7 3 pointers per game out of 11 shots is CRAZY.

oohah

martin wrote:
especially when you only make 40% of them.

Well then I guess he should shoot 20 3s per game, right?

I don't know if you have noticed but Gallinari's 3 point average is dropping as teams get up on him more.

Martin, do you really think that shooting 7 3s a game is a good idea for Gallinari? or having games where he shoots 12, 15, 17 3s?

oohah