I liked the pick of Hill given what I knew about who was available on the board at the time, but if Jennings was this good it couldn't have been that big of a secret...and we really, really needed a PG...

oohah wrote:

thejerk wrote:Walsh wasnt the only GM to pass on Jennings, they were 6 other GMS that passed on him as well. TD and Hill both look like they can ball so I am content so far.

Why do we care about other teams? What does that have to do with Walsh not filling the position of greatest need, regardless of whether he passed on a superstar? I guess we could say "Well, other teams did not make the playoffs". It doesn't make the Knicks situation any better.

TD and Hill may be good players but do not look like difference makers so far. The Knicks need difference makers.

oohah

I am not saying that you dont have your point, what I am saying is that we should not hang Donnie just yet based on the performance of a player that many people passed on. We should not be dwelling on the past, and while I am upset that we missed a guy that just dropped 55, we do have two players that can hopefully do something for us.

CrushAlot wrote:If your bringing up the Balkman pick, a guy not even predicted to go in the second round, it seems like passing on Rondo should be a part of the conversation as well.

If wee had a search feature, you would see that I always said that Rondo was what we missed out on, while everybody was crying about Marcus "I'm about as good as Rick Brunson" Williams.

oohah

McK1 wrote:

franco12 wrote:look- Jennings sure seemed to have an attitude problem aka marbury.

marbury paranoia should be listed in the medical dictionary...maybe call it stephanosis or something.

THe kid missed that game where the scouts and GMs went to watch him play. That left a sour taste in many GMs' minds. That is why alot of teams passed on him, including the Knicks. After going through the experience with Marbury, the Knicks did not want to touch another potential problem PG. That being said, Walsh did do a pisspoor job scouting this kid. He really had no idea how good Jennings was, and he should have at least properly evaluated the kid's talent.

TheGame wrote:

McK1 wrote:

franco12 wrote:look- Jennings sure seemed to have an attitude problem aka marbury.

marbury paranoia should be listed in the medical dictionary...maybe call it stephanosis or something.

THe kid missed that game where the scouts and GMs went to watch him play. That left a sour taste in many GMs' minds. That is why alot of teams passed on him, including the Knicks. After going through the experience with Marbury, the Knicks did not want to touch another potential problem PG. That being said, Walsh did do a pisspoor job scouting this kid. He really had no idea how good Jennings was, and he should have at least properly evaluated the kid's talent.

BRO!....

when you put it that way, then I have no regrets. I would have made the same choice if i could do it again, knowing what they knew. no regrets here.

good luck to jennings in his career. but marbury had DOPE stats too, remember?? marbury has HoF stats...the BOOK HASN'T BEEN WRITTEN YET. ONLY THE PREFACE, by some unknown author. WORD UP

sebstar wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:I think you're the one bringing the stereotypes, mr. sebstar.

what the hell are you talking about now?

Now, I am talking about, no one called the guy a thug or any of those things (that's your word). He just had some behavior issues, some mental issues. And if you remember his Joe Budden video, then that just proves that he is not 100% there, maturity wise.

This guy is awesome at hoops, no doubt, but it hasn't all been written yet, you know? So that's what I'm saying.

In short, I wouldn't trade Douglas for him right now if I had the chance. Douglas is our guy and he brings none of those questionable traits.

I mean, as that game was going on and the chemical balance in my brain was off because of other things like fatigue, I was on the hype-wagon.

But let's look at it, long-term.

Does Jennings have questionable traits? yes.

Did marbury? Yes.

Did Marbury have awesome stats? Yes.

Did Jennings? Yes he does now

Did Crawford score 50 points, ever? Sure, many times.

It hasn't all been said and done.

I'm still with Donnie & Co. on this one.

TONEY DOUGLAS RULEZ

orangeblobman wrote:thanks oohah.

I mean, as that game was going on and the chemical balance in my brain was off because of other things like fatigue, I was on the hype-wagon.

But let's look at it, long-term.

Does Jennings have questionable traits? yes.

Did marbury? Yes.

Did Marbury have awesome stats? Yes.

Did Jennings? Yes he does now

Did Crawford score 50 points, ever? Sure, many times.

It hasn't all been said and done.

I'm still with Donnie & Co. on this one.

TONEY DOUGLAS RULEZ

Time will tell whether Jennings is a Crawford/Marbury type player, or something special.

I did not want Jennings (or Hill, for that matter) but a lot of teams may have missed the boat with this kid. No way to get around it.

As with all draft picks, it is too early to tell where Jennings or Hill will end up as players, but he grass sure seems to be a lot greener on the others side so far.