Philc1 wrote:Love the Quickley development but he needs to play the 2 next year and maybe occasionally bring the ball up. Enough with converting him to pg

Why?

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Love the Quickley development but he needs to play the 2 next year and maybe occasionally bring the ball up. Enough with converting him to pg

Why?

Because he’s not a pg. never really was

I find that short sighted.

IQ was a PG in high school and didn't play PG in college because he was behind Terese Maxey in his last year and someone else before that. IQ did whatever the coach asked.

It's clear that IQ isn't as polished as a lead guard coming out of college but why wouldn't you want to grow that aspect of his game? He is doing really good things and making good decisions for both himself and the team.

You want to STOP doing those things that are making him better? Or you just wanna shuffle around labels like SG/PG that dont have any sort of meaning in this context?

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Love the Quickley development but he needs to play the 2 next year and maybe occasionally bring the ball up. Enough with converting him to pg

Why?

Because he’s not a pg. never really was

I find that short sighted.

IQ was a PG in high school and didn't play PG in college because he was behind Terese Maxey in his last year and someone else before that. IQ did whatever the coach asked.

It's clear that IQ isn't as polished as a lead guard coming out of college but why wouldn't you want to grow that aspect of his game? He is doing really good things and making good decisions for both himself and the team.

You want to STOP doing those things that are making him better? Or you just wanna shuffle around labels like SG/PG that dont have any sort of meaning in this context?

He has not been good as a pg for most of the season and not only did it impact wins and losses his shooting percentages went down significantly as a result. The short sighted thing would be to just look at the last 10 games and say “oh well, he’s a point guard now”

What do you think development looks like?

And do you think his arc is going in the right direction? Has it been worth while for the Knicks to put the ball in his hands or no?

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Love the Quickley development but he needs to play the 2 next year and maybe occasionally bring the ball up. Enough with converting him to pg

Why?

Because he’s not a pg. never really was

I find that short sighted.

IQ was a PG in high school and didn't play PG in college because he was behind Terese Maxey in his last year and someone else before that. IQ did whatever the coach asked.

It's clear that IQ isn't as polished as a lead guard coming out of college but why wouldn't you want to grow that aspect of his game? He is doing really good things and making good decisions for both himself and the team.

You want to STOP doing those things that are making him better? Or you just wanna shuffle around labels like SG/PG that dont have any sort of meaning in this context?

He has not been good as a pg for most of the season and not only did it impact wins and losses his shooting percentages went down significantly as a result. The short sighted thing would be to just look at the last 10 games and say “oh well, he’s a point guard now”

What do you think development looks like?

And do you think his arc is going in the right direction? Has it been worth while for the Knicks to put the ball in his hands or no?

this Randle thing really sucks... there was a time last night in the 4th when Randle brought the ball up as he often does, looked lazy and methodical as he often does and zipped a bounce pass to IQ who sliced right to the hole for an easy 2. It was everything good about Julius was saw last year. I'm not a fan of his game or his demeanor but damn when he's playing well he's really phuckin good. I just loathe the idea of giving up on a guy like that. My point? If IQ continues this level of play I would love to see him starting PG next year and when you have guys like Randle/RJ who you can also run the offense through its a good fit. I love IQ's defense. He's not always effective but is really getting better there also and the motor is A+.

I also think if IQ keeps this up there's a good chance he's the key part of a Randle/IQ/+ FRPs for Donovan

If I'm Utah I'd want IQ/RJ/Grimes, filler and whatever else. Or maybe after next season it's a newly extended RJ/IQ and whatever else.

Would you go for either?

Nalod wrote:Can’t imagine utah not starting with RJ as a package for Donovan.
I like Mitchell alot. At 6-1 with a 6-10 wingspan he is a very very good combo guard. RJ is 6-6 with the same span.
RJ Stats are now similar to Donovans Rookie stats at same age. He was 2 seasons at Louisville.
Mitchell is more accomplished at and would not come cheap.

I won’t bore anyone with a pro RJ narrative given he is a Knick, a drafted Knick and I hve 3 years vested in watching him. Im biased. RJ is a work in progress and Mitchell is a finished one.

To be fair, the question I can’t answer is does RJ have a similar? Worse? Or Better Trajectory then “Spider”? RJ’s geneticc build is closer to prototypical then Mitchell who is a stocky roundish strong type. Kyle Lowrey has shown us that can be sustainable but he is 6-1.

One of the reasons I think Knicks are playing RJ so much and putting him in the lead dog position as well has having him defend the best player on opposing team (and his last one could be at his request too) is they want to figure out how much of a max player he is. They have 1 more year after this one to figure it out.

Every high playoff team needs at least 1 player who you can give the ball to to get a bucket. RJ isn't there yet but IMHO they are putting RJ into the position to see if it's possible. His one big advantage is going downhill and using his body as his best advantage. He is built as a strong as a PF in a 6'6" body. RJ with finishing touch like Obi or a much better mid range is the player the Knicks want. And of course he has got to figure out his shooting.

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Love the Quickley development but he needs to play the 2 next year and maybe occasionally bring the ball up. Enough with converting him to pg

Why?

Because he’s not a pg. never really was

I find that short sighted.

IQ was a PG in high school and didn't play PG in college because he was behind Terese Maxey in his last year and someone else before that. IQ did whatever the coach asked.

It's clear that IQ isn't as polished as a lead guard coming out of college but why wouldn't you want to grow that aspect of his game? He is doing really good things and making good decisions for both himself and the team.

You want to STOP doing those things that are making him better? Or you just wanna shuffle around labels like SG/PG that dont have any sort of meaning in this context?

Its interesting and I view IQ as having Maxey upside. They are similar build and style. Maxey might be more explosive while IQ seems a bit more crafty. Their career per 36 stats are very similar (except that Maxey is a better shooter). Just that IQ is behind in Maxey's development in terms of being a Lead Guard/PG in the NBA.

Yes. As an aside, IMHO the Knicks were hoping to move up a few slots to get Maxey and their #2 choice behind him was IQ.

I don't understand the need or willingness to put a cap on what IQ is doing or where he will land 2-3 years from now. He is a learner and is an ultimate pro and worker. Dude gets after it and it shows.

I expect him to start next year, struggle out of the gate and then come on in the second half of the year. In his 4th year, IQ will take a major leap IMHO. That's my projection.

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Can’t imagine utah not starting with RJ as a package for Donovan.
I like Mitchell alot. At 6-1 with a 6-10 wingspan he is a very very good combo guard. RJ is 6-6 with the same span.
RJ Stats are now similar to Donovans Rookie stats at same age. He was 2 seasons at Louisville.
Mitchell is more accomplished at and would not come cheap.

I won’t bore anyone with a pro RJ narrative given he is a Knick, a drafted Knick and I hve 3 years vested in watching him. Im biased. RJ is a work in progress and Mitchell is a finished one.

To be fair, the question I can’t answer is does RJ have a similar? Worse? Or Better Trajectory then “Spider”? RJ’s geneticc build is closer to prototypical then Mitchell who is a stocky roundish strong type. Kyle Lowrey has shown us that can be sustainable but he is 6-1.

One of the reasons I think Knicks are playing RJ so much and putting him in the lead dog position as well has having him defend the best player on opposing team (and his last one could be at his request too) is they want to figure out how much of a max player he is. They have 1 more year after this one to figure it out.

Every high playoff team needs at least 1 player who you can give the ball to to get a bucket. RJ isn't there yet but IMHO they are putting RJ into the position to see if it's possible. His one big advantage is going downhill and using his body as his best advantage. He is built as a strong as a PF in a 6'6" body. RJ with finishing touch like Obi or a much better mid range is the player the Knicks want. And of course he has got to figure out his shooting.

Good take. its a good question. He at 21 is out there since January 1st sowing his oats and figuring things out. That does not mean all young players get that freedom. He has shown proficiancy to keep going. Obi has been uneven. IQ as well. Yes, his pedigree and age matters.

Nalod wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Can’t imagine utah not starting with RJ as a package for Donovan.
I like Mitchell alot. At 6-1 with a 6-10 wingspan he is a very very good combo guard. RJ is 6-6 with the same span.
RJ Stats are now similar to Donovans Rookie stats at same age. He was 2 seasons at Louisville.
Mitchell is more accomplished at and would not come cheap.

I won’t bore anyone with a pro RJ narrative given he is a Knick, a drafted Knick and I hve 3 years vested in watching him. Im biased. RJ is a work in progress and Mitchell is a finished one.

To be fair, the question I can’t answer is does RJ have a similar? Worse? Or Better Trajectory then “Spider”? RJ’s geneticc build is closer to prototypical then Mitchell who is a stocky roundish strong type. Kyle Lowrey has shown us that can be sustainable but he is 6-1.

One of the reasons I think Knicks are playing RJ so much and putting him in the lead dog position as well has having him defend the best player on opposing team (and his last one could be at his request too) is they want to figure out how much of a max player he is. They have 1 more year after this one to figure it out.

Every high playoff team needs at least 1 player who you can give the ball to to get a bucket. RJ isn't there yet but IMHO they are putting RJ into the position to see if it's possible. His one big advantage is going downhill and using his body as his best advantage. He is built as a strong as a PF in a 6'6" body. RJ with finishing touch like Obi or a much better mid range is the player the Knicks want. And of course he has got to figure out his shooting.

Good take. its a good question. He at 21 is out there since January 1st sowing his oats and figuring things out. That does not mean all young players get that freedom. He has shown proficiancy to keep going. Obi has been uneven. IQ as well. Yes, his pedigree and age matters.

Quite frankly, to different degrees, I think they did the same thing with Mitch and Randle too.

Got to stress these guys to see what you got. Mitch for contract reasons and Randle to see if last year was a fluke or not.