[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

For everyone who thinks we need a 7 footer (me included)
Author Thread
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
5/14/2005  8:33 AM
Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Marv:

What if you had #1 and Green absolutely wowed everyone at workouts? Would you pass on Bogut to take him?

the only guy I would take over Green is Bogut since he'll be a top 5-10 center for years to come in a league that lacks allstar calibur centers. It is harder to land a top 10 center than a star calibur SG.

My priority list:
1. Bogut
2. Green
3/4. Taft or Bynum
I'm going to have a real hard time choosing between Taft and Bynum but something is telling me to go with the player who will have a quicker impact on the Knicks, the 6'10 260 Taft.
5. Warrick
6. Splitter
7. Webster


It's great that Bynum and hopefully Gay are entering the draft because Bogut & Green will most likely be gone leaving us Taft, Bynum, Warrick or Splitter!

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 05/13/2005 23:34:25]
Bogut is way down my list. I am confident his game won't translate well in the NBA at all. I take Marvin Williams over him. Green over him, Taft over him, Vazquez over him and Splitter. I would have to contemplate about taking Petro over him too.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
AUTOADVERT
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
5/14/2005  8:40 AM
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Marv:

What if you had #1 and Green absolutely wowed everyone at workouts? Would you pass on Bogut to take him?

the only guy I would take over Green is Bogut since he'll be a top 5-10 center for years to come in a league that lacks allstar calibur centers. It is harder to land a top 10 center than a star calibur SG.

My priority list:
1. Bogut
2. Green
3/4. Taft or Bynum
I'm going to have a real hard time choosing between Taft and Bynum but something is telling me to go with the player who will have a quicker impact on the Knicks, the 6'10 260 Taft.
5. Warrick
6. Splitter
7. Webster


It's great that Bynum and hopefully Gay are entering the draft because Bogut & Green will most likely be gone leaving us Taft, Bynum, Warrick or Splitter!

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 05/13/2005 23:34:25]
Bogut is way down my list. I am confident his game won't translate well in the NBA at all. I take Marvin Williams over him. Green over him, Taft over him, Vazquez over him and Splitter. I would have to contemplate about taking Petro over him too.

Just out of curiosity did you watch Bogut play or are you just going by Stats and the stupid notion that he is overrated because he's white?
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/14/2005  8:45 AM
Posted by gunsnewing:


Just out of curiosity did you watch Bogut play or are you just going by Stats and the stupid notion that he is overrated because he's white?

I'm interested in the answer to that question and i'm also interested in knowing why you didn't include M Williams in your list, Guns.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/14/2005  8:48 AM
Posted by djsunyc:

another thing - we are a different team. we haven't had any type of size since we moved camby. you want to get a ben wallace type, then cool - BUT he didn't win in the playoffs either until he was joined up WITH another big man in sheed.

we need size AT EVERY POSITION.
Exactly and he works on that team where everyone on their squad plays good D. I am not so sure he would be the 'answer' for us on d. His athleticism and length make up for his lack of size but that also has to do with the fact that they all play D and he has a 6-11 lanky guy (sheed)right beside him.

Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/14/2005  8:55 AM
Furthermore we are a team starved for height, Ben wallace would look a little more regular on our squad especially if he was the biggest guy on the court for our team. Plus he is a freak of nature, there are 0 other players in the league like him. None. We can't use him as an example, its like trying to use Yao or Shaq, there aren't other players like them.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
5/14/2005  9:42 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by tapseer:

For all those who think we don't need a 7' footer, and who is using Ben Wallace as an example...Ben Wallace bounced around for a minute before he matured into the player he is now. A lot of you guys wouldn't have the patience to watch him develope his game before you're looking to get rid of him. Please be realistic. For everyone who wanted IT to turn this thing around in one year or 16 months, you're not going to wait 3-5 years for a player to find his game. Ben Wallace's first 4 years were nothing to write home about. This is just for those who think IT should be gone already. After looking at Ben Wallace's first 4 years, you all would be crying that IT brought another undersized PF to the team, and that Ben Wallace and IT should go immediately. If you're not going to give the GM a chance to see his vision thru, what makes you think you're going to wait for a player to develope? If a player doesn't show any discernable talent after the first or second year, the GM can't draft and the player has to go. You would bet money Washington and Orlando wished Ben Wallace was still on their team.

the only guy IT brought in that can get better that I wouldnt label a retread is Crawford.

Come one now, IT has traded for nazr mo taylor malik rose Tim Thomas signed vin baker JYD, Penny, Starbury, Penny--ben wallace was 25 when he got acquired by detroit--you think 28 yO Mo taylor is ben wallace???? or nazr???? he gave up on Johnson, didnt play Butler

look at the team picture hard, we have 2 guards and 8 F who are around 6-8 and NOT a Ben Wallace 6-8.

I'm sure people will give iT all the time in the world, Im expecting a 2-3 year turnaround, but what do you expect some fans to feel like with spending all that money on malik and taylor at the deadline? you dont agree we have 7 PFs??? and a logjam with nO C and no solid back up Gs? were not a young team, were one of the oldest. let the plan unfold--ok let me see phase 6--is it going to be another 6-8 retread PF? Im patient, but I didnt like the path we took at the deadline. those guys arent exactly young and make to much $ for bench players.
Briggs, please give clear plans on how to acquire other teams young talent which they would like to keep. Because I don't other than drafting them or acquiring veterans that a playoff team may need. I would have never guess that Nazr would get you 2 1st round picks, and I would take back Malik Rose, I think he is the type of veteran that adds value to any team (the Bulls could have used Rose). I wouldn't be surprised if he is traded during the season.
While nearly everyone on this board wants to get rid of KT but people in the press want Isiah to keep him. People are still killing him for trading him for 1st round picks. I don't care how much of Dolan money Isiah is spending. I want him to go after Kwame Brown with the MLE but I am sure that most in the media will kill him for that too. Also I can't blame him for Johnson, Lenny and his coaching staff including Herb Williams wanted to keep Ariza over Johnson, it became a roster spot crunch. Not playing Butler is a Herb Williams decision not Isiah.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
5/14/2005  9:59 AM
Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Marv:

What if you had #1 and Green absolutely wowed everyone at workouts? Would you pass on Bogut to take him?

the only guy I would take over Green is Bogut since he'll be a top 5-10 center for years to come in a league that lacks allstar calibur centers. It is harder to land a top 10 center than a star calibur SG.

My priority list:
1. Bogut
2. Green
3/4. Taft or Bynum
I'm going to have a real hard time choosing between Taft and Bynum but something is telling me to go with the player who will have a quicker impact on the Knicks, the 6'10 260 Taft.
5. Warrick
6. Splitter
7. Webster


It's great that Bynum and hopefully Gay are entering the draft because Bogut & Green will most likely be gone leaving us Taft, Bynum, Warrick or Splitter!

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 05/13/2005 23:34:25]
Bogut is way down my list. I am confident his game won't translate well in the NBA at all. I take Marvin Williams over him. Green over him, Taft over him, Vazquez over him and Splitter. I would have to contemplate about taking Petro over him too.

Just out of curiosity did you watch Bogut play or are you just going by Stats and the stupid notion that he is overrated because he's white?
First race had nothing to do with it, I think I mention two white players I take before him. I watched a couple of his games. My personal opinion was wow this guy is dominating but also I got the feeling that I was watching this guy during his prime right now. I don't think he has lot of potential to get better. Yes we all know the term potential has become a sort of "negative." While he has pretty good footwork, I also notice he was slow to get into it. That doesn't translate well in the pros, because those skinny kids begin to fill out, and their athleticism begin to dominate. Remember how Rik Smits use to dominate in college but was somewhat hinder by his lack of athleticism, and his slow footwork which only got worst with injuries. Personally I think Bogut will be a very good role player but not a superstar, I am sure you agree with me that a top lotto pick should be thought to be more than a role player.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/14/2005  10:52 AM
Posted by gunsnewing:

I'm sorry I meant one that went in the lottery. Ben just proves my point that you can find a good center later in the draft or in the CBA without wasting a lottery pick on one and pass up on the next amare, wade, mcgrady, pierce

Is wallace a good center or a very good PF? I say he is a very good PF, he is not a center, and right now he is getting Housed by Jeff Foster. If wallace was a real center with some sort of down low game, the pistons would be up 3-0, now they are down 2-1 with sheed foolishly guarantee victory.... The key to this series outside of miller is the board work of the pacers bigs... If there is center in the draft who has the potential to be a beast down low, I want him!!! look at how zo even at a former shell of himself is controlling the games when he is in there 14/13/ and 4 blocks, that is huge... Washington could not overcome that....
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/14/2005  11:20 AM
Posted by franco12:
Posted by BRIGGS:

thats cool, a player like amare stoudemire comes along every 20 years, the only comparison i can think of is karl malone. you cant just arbitrarily say we dont need a 7 foot player! you dont get many choices anyway! no one is trading you amare stoudemire and guys like patrick get traded when they are shot or closingin on the end. ben wallace is a real good player, but not anywhere near this status.

Briggs- I'm not arbitrarily saying we don't need a 7 footer, but I am saying that we don't arbitrarily need a 7 footer for the sake of one.

I don't know any of these college, HS or Euro players- but, if you've got the chance to draft someone like Bynum, a HS project who might not be anything but a stiff, or a chance to take a solid 6'8" collge player who doesn't have as much upside but is more certain, don't get caught up in height alone.

We absolutely need size.

We also need skill and quickness.

Give me a LeBron over a Dampier

OK, then give me duncan over charlie ward... you hee how unfair your comparison was? Lebron and Dampier? Would you say give me lebron over duncan? or Shaq?, those are probably the only two guys that I would take over Lebron, along with Garnett.. Of course people are going to take Lebron over Dampier who is a bum.. The idea here is to get a big man who can be a factor.. As much as I like amare, he still would be at a disadvantage is Dampier just manned up and took his behind down low like he is supposed to.... If Petro, Blatche, splitter, or any of the bigs show up really good in the workouts, one of them better be our pick at 8..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
5/14/2005  12:02 PM
Posted by diderotn:

Look here, don't get your analogy mixedup. The reason why Amare is successful is because of the players that he has around him. Marb made him look extremely good a couple of seasons ago, but Phoenix wasn't as effective because they didn't have enough shooters (Q Richardson, Joe Johnson, Nash, Marion, Jimmy Jackson, etc) like they do this season. Without those players to spread the court, Amare's size would have been exposed. Don't get it twisted. Same goes for Ben Wallace, he has guys around him to better his defense. Prince, Rasheed and others are no chumps, they are all first class defenders and scorers. When going against Ben and Amare, you have to account for those other guys, and that along makes the game smoother for those two out of position athletes....

Posted by BRIGGS:

thats cool, a player like amare stoudemire comes along every 20 years, the only comparison i can think of is karl malone. you cant just arbitrarily say we dont need a 7 foot player! you dont get many choices anyway! no one is trading you amare stoudemire and guys like patrick get traded when they are shot or closingin on the end. ben wallace is a real good player, but not anywhere near this status.

[Edited by - diderotn on 05/14/2005 01:45:39]

Amare Stoudemire is a once in a decade player. Don't compare anything we have to Amare because its not fair. On top of it, the Suns had Marbury Johnson Marion and some good role players. I think the reality is Nash is better than Marbury as a true PG and Amare Stoudemire just needs to get the ball. I would give an arguement that Amare is better than any player in the league myself.
RIP Crushalot😞
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
5/14/2005  1:00 PM
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by Marv:

What if you had #1 and Green absolutely wowed everyone at workouts? Would you pass on Bogut to take him?

the only guy I would take over Green is Bogut since he'll be a top 5-10 center for years to come in a league that lacks allstar calibur centers. It is harder to land a top 10 center than a star calibur SG.

My priority list:
1. Bogut
2. Green
3/4. Taft or Bynum
I'm going to have a real hard time choosing between Taft and Bynum but something is telling me to go with the player who will have a quicker impact on the Knicks, the 6'10 260 Taft.
5. Warrick
6. Splitter
7. Webster


It's great that Bynum and hopefully Gay are entering the draft because Bogut & Green will most likely be gone leaving us Taft, Bynum, Warrick or Splitter!

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 05/13/2005 23:34:25]
Bogut is way down my list. I am confident his game won't translate well in the NBA at all. I take Marvin Williams over him. Green over him, Taft over him, Vazquez over him and Splitter. I would have to contemplate about taking Petro over him too.

Just out of curiosity did you watch Bogut play or are you just going by Stats and the stupid notion that he is overrated because he's white?
First race had nothing to do with it, I think I mention two white players I take before him. I watched a couple of his games. My personal opinion was wow this guy is dominating but also I got the feeling that I was watching this guy during his prime right now. I don't think he has lot of potential to get better. Yes we all know the term potential has become a sort of "negative." While he has pretty good footwork, I also notice he was slow to get into it. That doesn't translate well in the pros, because those skinny kids begin to fill out, and their athleticism begin to dominate. Remember how Rik Smits use to dominate in college but was somewhat hinder by his lack of athleticism, and his slow footwork which only got worst with injuries. Personally I think Bogut will be a very good role player but not a superstar, I am sure you agree with me that a top lotto pick should be thought to be more than a role player.

Only problem I have with that is that Tim Duncan played the same exact way Bogut did in college. The only year that Tim Duncan put up the same numbers that the sophmore Bogut put up this year was his Senior year and neither player had much of ANY supporting cast around them. Duncan was the consensus #1 pick because of his excellent fundamentals, rebounding and defensive play and had the same knock on him about the footspeed that you are pitting on Bogut. It's hard to compare any player that plays the game of basketball to Tim Duncan but you have to here and Bogut may never be as dominant as Tim Duncan is but he is DEFINITELY worthy of the #1 pick in this draft and whomever gets him will get a postprescence who can pass with the best bigs in the league, rebound, play good MAN defense and block shots. That doesn't come around too often.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 05/14/2005 13:01:57]
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/14/2005  5:50 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

I would give an arguement that Amare is better than any player in the league myself.
And that is where you lost me. That is an incredible reach. Why isn't he the MVP of the league then? Or a serious candidate?

He is a player with major limitations. His athleticism and strength, and style of play help him overcome that. On a different team, or simply without Nash, he is significantly less effective.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
5/14/2005  6:00 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by BRIGGS:

I would give an arguement that Amare is better than any player in the league myself.
And that is where you lost me. That is an incredible reach. Why isn't he the MVP of the league then? Or a serious candidate?

He is a player with major limitations. His athleticism and strength, and style of play help him overcome that. On a different team, or simply without Nash, he is significantly less effective.

I think he is more of an MVP than Nash but not as good a MVP as Shaq and Duncan!
OldFan
Posts: 21456
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2003
Member: #446
5/14/2005  7:34 PM
I'm not too hung up on getting a 7 fter. Why 7ft it's an arbitrary height. Long arms, strength, quickness are easily as important as a couple of inches as are talent/skills. Teams tend to make mistakes when they value height too much. Besides who knows the real height of anyone in the NBA or CBB. Is Duncan really 6'11" as he is listed by ESPN?

Another interesting note is that by listed height 1/2 or more of the top rebounders and shot blockers were under 7ft.

There have been plenty of good and great bigs who were undersized compared to their peers: Reed, Unseld, Mourning, Wallace, Stoudmire, Cowans...

Size certainly matters but so does everything else.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/14/2005  7:55 PM
7ft isn't an arbitrary height, it is more or less the standard size for the position. Each position has 'average' or desireable sizes and it matters though it obviously isn't all that matters.

Many want Green because he is 6-8 and plays the 2, which is oversize for his position. We don't want KT because he is 6-9, undersized, and woefully unathletic to play the C or even the PF the way we need it.

If KT was 7-0 with the same exact skills and same lack of athleticism, he'd be a force in the league and we'd be a better team. Size matters alot. Not just heigt either, arm length is probably nearly as important as overall heaight. With long arms you can play above your height which is what Ben Wallace is able to do. The reason 7 footers who suck or are only marginally talented can make better than average money in the league is because size matters and it is a scarce commodity.

Furthermore, when players are worked out, you know their height, wingspan weight and so on. When they play against other players they know even more. Emphasis is placed on these things because they are very important.

1/2 of the top rebounders are under 7 feet because there are not many 7 foot players in the league. There are 7 footers, but many are not players in the league, which is why size matters, but is not everything.
OldFan
Posts: 21456
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2003
Member: #446
5/14/2005  9:05 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:

7ft isn't an arbitrary height, it is more or less the standard size for the position. Each position has 'average' or desireable sizes and it matters though it obviously isn't all that matters.

Many want Green because he is 6-8 and plays the 2, which is oversize for his position. We don't want KT because he is 6-9, undersized, and woefully unathletic to play the C or even the PF the way we need it.

If KT was 7-0 with the same exact skills and same lack of athleticism, he'd be a force in the league and we'd be a better team. Size matters alot. Not just heigt either, arm length is probably nearly as important as overall heaight. With long arms you can play above your height which is what Ben Wallace is able to do. The reason 7 footers who suck or are only marginally talented can make better than average money in the league is because size matters and it is a scarce commodity.

Furthermore, when players are worked out, you know their height, wingspan weight and so on. When they play against other players they know even more. Emphasis is placed on these things because they are very important.

1/2 of the top rebounders are under 7 feet because there are not many 7 foot players in the league. There are 7 footers, but many are not players in the league, which is why size matters, but is not everything.

I agree these things are important. But you're not talking about just height you mentioned wing span and weight etc. 7ft is an arbitrary cutoff and height is a very imperfect measure of basketball size. You don't do anything in basketball with the top of your head (except for the ability to see over shorter players). Give me a 6'10" guy with long arms over a short armed seven footer any day. Give be a Mourning at 6'10 over 95% of the seven footer who have ever played the game.

Height is only one factor and it's a very imperfect measure so I tend not to focus on any exact height being the correct or minumum one.

gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
5/14/2005  9:13 PM
a Center who is 6'10 is still a big center. The arguement is about guys who are 6-8 and play center like ben wallace and amare. You guys are right, those guys pull it off because they are athlete and block shots primarily and have large wingspans but an unathletic Kurt at center doesn't have as positive an effect on the wins column on the other hand.
For everyone who thinks we need a 7 footer (me included)

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy