McK1 wrote:

TMS wrote:

McK1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:
They should be, considering where they were picked. Aside from TD who fell more due to being considered a short SG, both Hill and Gallo are legit lottery prospects.

what do you see us getting from from hill at 8 that the bulls aren't going to get from taj gibson at 16.

Jordan Hill has a better jumpshot for starters... Taj Gibson is a nice role player, plays tough defense & blocks shots, but that's pretty much all he is... Hill has the talent to be much more... he can be a scorer in the low post, he's already got a developed turn around J that he uses effectively which is tough to guard, & can stretch a defense w/his perimeter shooting ability... once he gets a handle on his footwork & on where he needs to be on the floor on defense, he can be a nice 2-way player for this team... i'm telling u this based on games i've watched him play in the NBA as well as all last year in college... i'd be highly shocked if all Jordan Hill ever became was a role player a-la Taj Gibson.

hill's turnaround was tough to guard when he wss shooting over 6'7 centers in college. we saw in the sl's he had alot of trouble getting that shot off over people his height. he gets no lift off the ground when performing that move nor does he get alot of extension on the shot. with no big man coach to help him here, I don't see that minus turning into a plus.

watching him on the bulls, taj gibson's straight away shot is as good as hill's. playing pick n pop thats the shot he'll see most anyway.

well whatever u or i think about Hill, time will tell the story... just gonna have to wait & see before we cast final judgements either way... i'm optimistic on Hill, ur not... we'll see what happens.

TMS wrote:oh & i gotta give a shout to Toney Douglas... i really like the way this kid plays the game... he's not about being flashy or being showy, he just goes out & plays hard.

He's playing decent ball as a individule, but he isn't making anyone better

nixluva wrote:Exactly what is it about him that you have to hold against him as a our lottery pick?

brandon jennings, whom is at it again tonight. if bron doesn't come the franchise still would've been in good hands. he is dominating GS in the 3rd qtr as we speak.

29 pts in the ****ing 3rd qtr...the yung money show should be on ****ing broadway

Paraphrase: "Put me and Ricky Rubio in a gym together and see who comes out."

The kid wasn't lying. Birth of a star.

oohah

nixluva wrote:I'm not overly impressed by high scoring guards like him. I've seen many guys like him in my lifetime. None of that means he's a winner or that he'd be the right guy for our team. COuld we use someone who can score... heck yeah, but really if that was all, we already had Steph and i've seen AI play his entire career and not actually win a title. Scoring from the PG spot isn't everything. I want a guard that gets 10 assists per and 15 points and 2 stls a game. I think that's better for winning basketball. So far he seems like a very good player and that's good for him.

I still like what MDA and Walsh where doing in trying to get a bigman to play in MDA's system. I can understand not wanting to miss out on a guy that might be a solid piece to the future puzzle when they didn't get the guard they wanted. Think about this. We're not concerned when TD scores 20 pts, cuz really that's not what we really need so much as a PG that can run the team and get everyone involved and playing at their peak efficiency. Is Jennings that kind of guard? I don't know. I do know that, that's what we need. So kudos to him for having a great start to his rookie season.

You're not overly impressed? But you seem to be pretty impressed by Gallinari - and what Hill "could" be.

You've got to be kidding me nixluva. Jennings has checked every box of need the Knicks have. He's already the undisputed leader of that team. He's already willing the Bucks to win games, and they should be as bad as the Knicks, he can play in transition which is exactly what D'Antoni wants, he rebounds, he can shoot which is exactly what D'Antoni wants, nobody can guard him...the list goes on.

The kid is a star. He is the kind of player who takes so much attention that other players are better as a result.

You replied to me in another post telling me how good Hill can be. If this Jennings kid was on the Knicks you would be ECSTATIC, no ifs ands or buts. So please my friend, don't be silly. Unless Hill turns into Shawn Marion, Walsh flubbed this pick awfully. The Knicks needed a PG, Jennings, a full on star point guard was available and Walsh picked the project player. He fukced up. If you can't admit that you are just playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

oohah

oohah wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm not overly impressed by high scoring guards like him. I've seen many guys like him in my lifetime. None of that means he's a winner or that he'd be the right guy for our team. COuld we use someone who can score... heck yeah, but really if that was all, we already had Steph and i've seen AI play his entire career and not actually win a title. Scoring from the PG spot isn't everything. I want a guard that gets 10 assists per and 15 points and 2 stls a game. I think that's better for winning basketball. So far he seems like a very good player and that's good for him.

I still like what MDA and Walsh where doing in trying to get a bigman to play in MDA's system. I can understand not wanting to miss out on a guy that might be a solid piece to the future puzzle when they didn't get the guard they wanted. Think about this. We're not concerned when TD scores 20 pts, cuz really that's not what we really need so much as a PG that can run the team and get everyone involved and playing at their peak efficiency. Is Jennings that kind of guard? I don't know. I do know that, that's what we need. So kudos to him for having a great start to his rookie season.

You're not overly impressed? But you seem to be pretty impressed by Gallinari - and what Hill "could" be.

You've got to be kidding me nixluva. Jennings has checked every box of need the Knicks have. He's already the undisputed leader of that team. He's already willing the Bucks to win games, and they should be as bad as the Knicks, he can play in transition which is exactly what D'Antoni wants, he rebounds, he can shoot which is exactly what D'Antoni wants, nobody can guard him...the list goes on.

The kid is a star. He is the kind of player who takes so much attention that other players are better as a result.

You replied to me in another post telling me how good Hill can be. If this Jennings kid was on the Knicks you would be ECSTATIC, no ifs ands or buts. So please my friend, don't be silly. Unless Hill turns into Shawn Marion, Walsh flubbed this pick awfully. The Knicks needed a PG, Jennings, a full on star was available and Walsh picked the project player. he ****ed up. If you can't admit that you are just playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

oohah

Of Course IF he was a Knick i'd be happy, just like I am for any of our players, but that's not the point i'm making. The point is will this kid end up being the kind of player that could help make his teammates better and get the TEAM playing winning ball or is he another Ai or Steph or Francis etc. I'm not gonna get all excited by this cuz i've seen this player before. We could unleash a kid like Nate or even TD and if he was allowed to just call his own number I believe either could put up some big numbers. Don't get too carried away by all this.

Let's say he was here, would his scoring help the rest of the guys on our team that are slumping or merely cover it up. See that's what AI used to do. His teams were often awful offensively but so long as he could take a major portion of the shots it was all good. Seen it before not overly impressed.

nixluva wrote:
Of Course IF he was a Knick i'd be happy, just like I am for any of our players, but that's not the point i'm making. The point is will this kid end up being the kind of player that could help make his teammates better and get the TEAM playing winning ball or is he another Ai or Steph or Francis etc. I'm not gonna get all excited by this cuz i've seen this player before. We could unleash a kid like Nate or even TD and if he was allowed to just call his own number I believe either could put up some big numbers. Don't get too carried away by all this.

Let's say he was here, would his scoring help the rest of the guys on our team that are slumping or merely cover it up. See that's what AI used to do. His teams were often awful offensively but so long as he could take a major portion of the shots it was all good. Seen it before not overly impressed.

Let's not play with each other. If Jenning was here you would not be "happy" you would be ECSTATIC.

I don't really get your argument. Would a player like Jennings cover up that other players are slumping? YES! And part of that covering up would be called "wins". Something wrong with that?

I'm not the biggest Iverson fan, but if you are comparing this kid to Iverson while making an argument for picking Hill over Jennings, or how Walsh did not blow it, I think that is nothing short of absurd.

Nixluva, let me be clear. There ain't nothing to be smiling about in Knicks-land right now. We've known each other for years now and you're always playing the same tune and the Knicks have been god-awful the whole time. I understand optimism, but sugarcoating the awful truth does not make it any less true.

Here is the awful truth: The Knicks just picked a raw project player at a position that they are 4 deep at instead of picking a budding star, if not super-star at a position that they are not covered at all in.

oohah

McK1 wrote:
in the phases of the game where duhon consistently loses it for ny jenning is winning it for the bucks.

Without Jennings, The Bucks are only a little better than the Knicks.

oohah

McK1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:
Let's say he was here, would his scoring help the rest of the guys on our team that are slumping or merely cover it up. See that's what AI used to do. His teams were often awful offensively but so long as he could take a major portion of the shots it was all good. Seen it before not overly impressed.

why do you keep mentioning AI. They don't play the same way. please go on justintv or something and see if they have a replay of the game. then tomorrow go rent a copy of the classic vid "showmen guards of the nba."

in the phases of the game where duhon consistently loses it for ny jenning is winning it for the bucks.

GS could not solve the Bucks (usually Bogut) high pick strategy, and Jennings was in a ridiculous groove with his shot. On most of his jumpers, there was nobody near him- no hand in his face.

He looks like he can play the classic PG game, but it was basically a 2 (Jennings/Bogut) on five game, and you get the feeling that Skiles told him to take what he was given, and not worry about overshooting. As far as I saw (3rd and the 1st half of the 4th quarter) Jennings did not take any crazy shots- he was open for every jumper he took, and did not force things.

No attempts by Nelson to double team and get the ball out of his hands, so Jennings would get a free pass until the 3pt circle, at which time Bogut or another Buck (I think) would set the high pick so Jennings could do his thing.

Paladin55 wrote: I expected this from S. Curry, not the "undisciplined street player."

Why is Jennings a street player? He may not come from the same money as Curry, but I bet Jennings was playing organized ball his whole life. It seems a lot of conclusions were drawn about Jennings were made before they really took a look at who he is. And when he just came out honest that he felt he (And Johnny Flynn) was a better player than Rubio, he was vilified.

At this point I would be very surprised if Rubio was as good as Jennings or Flynn. Minnesota should trade the rubio pick while he still has some value.

He is definitely a "one who got away" player, but not only for us. What other teams could have used him who drafted before us? As Knicks fans were are pissed of because many of you wanted him, but other teams might also be hitting themselves in the head over not taking him.

Why should we care about those teams? The Knicks had a need at PG, Jennings was there and the Knicks decided to add another player at a position where they did not have a need. It makes no sense.

oohah