foosballnick wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

cooch2584 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

So you would take the best player regardless of need?

If you already have shaq and Ewing is the best player available, are your going to draft him.

When you draft fit, the learning curb is easy, the development is easy, roles are easier to identify.

Draft talent, and you may have to change everything about your current roster because his skill set doesn't match or compliment most of your team.

This is why you see OBI taking hella 3's, it's because Mitch and Noel are not stretch bigs. I mean can you stretch noel or mitch out for a baseline 3, while you run PnR with Obi. Nope because they will leave them unguarded and pack the paint.

So in the 1992 draft if the Knicks had the top pick, you are passing on both Shaq and Zo because we got Ewing? Who you going with? The needs were mostly at the 2 and 3, so I guess you go with Walt Williams? LOL

If you are at the top of the draft, you take the best talent.

No, I'm saying that if you had Ewing, and shaq and curry are both available in the same draft, your going to go with shaq (because he's more talented) although you desperately need shooting.

If your system is base on playing fast and hitting 3's, why would you draft a guy who can't do any of that.

So in your pea brain you take Tisdale who could shoot, over Ewing because you already have Cartwright? No, you take Ewing and trade on or the other. In our case we traded Bill for Oak. Even we got that one right.

If you have a star, and your drafting first it means the team sucks Btw. If you have Shaq or Ewing and your bottom feeder ther is a reason!

BigDaddyG wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

cooch2584 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

So you would take the best player regardless of need?

If you already have shaq and Ewing is the best player available, are your going to draft him.

When you draft fit, the learning curb is easy, the development is easy, roles are easier to identify.

Draft talent, and you may have to change everything about your current roster because his skill set doesn't match or compliment most of your team.

This is why you see OBI taking hella 3's, it's because Mitch and Noel are not stretch bigs. I mean can you stretch noel or mitch out for a baseline 3, while you run PnR with Obi. Nope because they will leave them unguarded and pack the paint.

So in the 1992 draft if the Knicks had the top pick, you are passing on both Shaq and Zo because we got Ewing? Who you going with? The needs were mostly at the 2 and 3, so I guess you go with Walt Williams? LOL

If you are at the top of the draft, you take the best talent.

Yep. Need should only be a factor if you're deciding between players the organization has graded similarly. You don't draft Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan because you have Clyde Drexler. You draft Jordan and, if worse comes to worse, you flip one of them for something you need.

Exactly

ramtour420 wrote:This draft we got lucky. We were able to get the BPA(luck) who just happens to fill a need of a stretch 4. ( Luck again)

I agree. Haliburton would have done the same as well, but seeing how Quickley looks solid that may be irrelevant. If we got our stretch 4 with Toppin and our 3pt shooter/playmaker with Quickley than we filled 2 big needs position-wise and shooting wise.

ramtour420 wrote:This draft we got lucky. We were able to get the BPA(luck) who just happens to fill a need of a stretch 4. ( Luck again)

The draft is more or less based on Luck, especially this yr with the pandemic and no March Madness.

There was no Luck in drafting quickly, we had more intel on him than any other team in the NBA

Knickfury11 wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:This draft we got lucky. We were able to get the BPA(luck) who just happens to fill a need of a stretch 4. ( Luck again)

I agree. Haliburton would have done the same as well, but seeing how Quickley looks solid that may be irrelevant. If we got our stretch 4 with Toppin and our 3pt shooter/playmaker with Quickley than we filled 2 big needs position-wise and shooting wise.

Quick looked excellent in the preseason and the first half of the pacer game I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up being better than Halliburton

I’m absolutely delighted with the displays from IQ in his appearances thus far. I’m sure there will be ups and downs as with all rookies. But on early evidence potentially a real steal.

I’m just not comfortable with calling OB1 a stretch 4. Was not a fan of the pick but I accept the pick and root for him because I’m a fan. Here’s hoping... Randle current form may also reduce his mins.

I don't like him out there either, but based on the makeup of the team, and style they seem to adapting to. I don't seem him posting up much if Mith and Noel are in the game at the same time.

Thats why Thibs was experimenting with Randle at the 5 and OBI at the 4.

fishmike wrote:Here's a fun stat:
Knicks lead the NBA in 3 point shooting
Knick have taken the 2nd fewest 3s in the league

NYKBocker wrote:

fishmike wrote:Here's a fun stat:
Knicks lead the NBA in 3 point shooting
Knick have taken the 2nd fewest 3s in the league

Love that stat. Take good 3s.

BigDaddyG wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

fishmike wrote:Here's a fun stat:
Knicks lead the NBA in 3 point shooting
Knick have taken the 2nd fewest 3s in the league

Love that stat. Take good 3s.

We're also 24th in possessions per game. I would've thought it was higher. Key thing so far is that were holding teams to .438 shooting, fifth in the league, and .244 three point shooting, which is tops.

We have identity early for sure... its we take good shots and we grind on defense every possession and we have guys chomping at the bit for minutes. When you have that AND a supportive culture as well as an accountable one good things happen and happen fast.