StarksEwing1 wrote:It was bad luck that the ACL tear happened. I remember thinking right after it happened that it was gonna be a while until shump can get back to what he was. Sure he was never a big offensive threat but his quickness and tremendous defense made us a better team. I dont want to trade him but i fear he may not ever get back to being 100% and if certain teams are willing to offer something good we have to look into it

Jamal Crawford tore his ACL in in college. It is not a bad injury. Just takes 2yrs to get back to 100%

gunsnewing wrote:Depends who you get for Shumpert. A veteran bench player or a Dudley doesn't cut it. Milsap or Hickson yes

Stop my panties are all in a bunch,

JJ Hickson on new york?? ALL WIN, THIS GUY IS THE TRUTH!!

dk7th wrote:

VCoug wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Knicks need was at 2-guard. PF wasn't on their mind with Amare coming off a 26ppg season

You never draft for need, always draft for talent.

knickscity wrote:

VCoug wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:I wonder how many on here will still say how Shumpert was a better pick than Faried

Just sayin

Shump was/is just another player/YUTE overrated by this fan base

Excellent defender (at least he was and will hopefully he will regain) / horrible offender

You realize you can win any draft with the benefit of hindsight?

OK, but wanting Faried isn't necessarily hindsight. Several of us, myself included, wanted Faried in that draft.

Were you happy with Shumps performance last season? If you say yes, then it's hindsight.

No, that's not hindsight. Hindsight is if I had wanted Shump more than Faried and now, two years later, regretting that we didn't draft Faried.

is there any scenario where you do draft for need in basketball? not a rhetorical question here, i want to know what's behind the statement.

None that I can think of. You never want to pass on Michael Jordan because you need a center and Sam Bowie's there. More than anything else, talent is what wins in the NBA and even if a player doesn't necessarily fit right having a talented, cost controlled player who'll become an RFA at the end of his contract is more valuable as a trade chip than a mediocre player who does fit the team. If you look at past drafts the 1st round is littered with crappy big men taken before more talented wing players but how does taking Jordan Hill 8th overall actually help the team just because he possible fills a bigger need? You also can't predict the future, just because a certain position was an area of strength one year doesn't mean it will be going forward. Free agency, trades, and injuries can all turn a perceived strength into a weakness in less than a year.

And it's not just basketball. Baseball's draft is such a crap shoot that teams could never afford to pass on a possibly more talented player to pick a lesser one that fills a current need. In football, a lot of people ripped the Giants for taking JPP 3 years ago when we already had Tuck, Osi, and Kiwi at DE and then a few years later Osi's leaving in free agency, Tuck looks finished, and who the hell knows what's going on with Kiwi. This past season JPP was, by far, our best DL and two seasons ago we probably wouldn't have made it to the playoffs, let alone the Superbowl, without him. And how many NFL teams are better off because they reached for some crappy QB in the 1st round instead of taking a much better player at a different position?

gunsnewing wrote:Faried was looked at as being another undersized role player. Not only by the Knicks but by 29 other teams

He was drafted 22nd.

mrKnickShot wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Was there a poll before or right after the draft? Hindsight Faried was clearly the better pick. The kid is a beast

Hindsight David Lee at 30 was a much better pick than Marvin Williams at 2

Ok ...

So where did you vote in that poll after their first seasons?

so of us actually saw shumpert for what he was/is. A good defensive player and a weak and inefficient offensive player. His TS sucked in college and guess what ... it still sucks.

I would have been happy with either player, mainly because the team needed some defense in the back court more than another forward.

3G4G wrote:

VCoug wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Knicks need was at 2-guard. PF wasn't on their mind with Amare coming off a 26ppg season

You never draft for need, always draft for talent.

Disagree....had we drafted for need in the 2008 and 2009 draft we would have potentially had(Eric Gordon/Lopez/Mayo or Lawson/Holiday/Curry) factoring trading up if necessary. We needed any combination of a Guard/Center/Point Guard in either of those drafts which in the end covers the talent aspect too.

This is eliminating guys like....

Hibbert/Batum/Jordan/Dragic/Ryan Anderson/George Hill/Omer Asik...arguably as good as talents as Gallo

and

Gerald Henderson/Taj Gibson/Buddinger/Danny Green/Jeff Teague/Marcus Thornton/B.J. Mullens...arguably as good as talents as Hill and Douglas

All filling more of our needs at the time. Keep in mind needs don't always mean positioned player, it can also mean what skillset does a player bring to a team lacking such(i.e. rebounding, interior defense, perimeter defense, shooting, leadership, etc etc)

Talents that weren't hyped as much coming into the draft, who were picked later and/or around our selections in those drafts or players who could have been draft with additional pick(s) and/or acquired pick(s) as in the case of Toney Douglas. Talent also may not cover UPSIDE...as it is vague it could assume Talent as in NBA ready BPA.

I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion that we drafted for talent in those drafts, particularly 2009. My recollection is that most people thought Jordan Hill was kind of a reach and a lot of posters here were saying we should've drafted Jennings, Derozan, Holiday, or Lawson. Also, we were still terrible both of those years so we could've drafted any position we wanted to and we could have said we were drafting for need.

VCoug wrote:

3G4G wrote:

VCoug wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Knicks need was at 2-guard. PF wasn't on their mind with Amare coming off a 26ppg season

You never draft for need, always draft for talent.

Disagree....had we drafted for need in the 2008 and 2009 draft we would have potentially had(Eric Gordon/Lopez/Mayo or Lawson/Holiday/Curry) factoring trading up if necessary. We needed any combination of a Guard/Center/Point Guard in either of those drafts which in the end covers the talent aspect too.

This is eliminating guys like....

Hibbert/Batum/Jordan/Dragic/Ryan Anderson/George Hill/Omer Asik...arguably as good as talents as Gallo

and

Gerald Henderson/Taj Gibson/Buddinger/Danny Green/Jeff Teague/Marcus Thornton/B.J. Mullens...arguably as good as talents as Hill and Douglas

All filling more of our needs at the time. Keep in mind needs don't always mean positioned player, it can also mean what skillset does a player bring to a team lacking such(i.e. rebounding, interior defense, perimeter defense, shooting, leadership, etc etc)

Talents that weren't hyped as much coming into the draft, who were picked later and/or around our selections in those drafts or players who could have been draft with additional pick(s) and/or acquired pick(s) as in the case of Toney Douglas. Talent also may not cover UPSIDE...as it is vague it could assume Talent as in NBA ready BPA.

I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion that we drafted for talent in those drafts, particularly 2009. My recollection is that most people thought Jordan Hill was kind of a reach and a lot of posters here were saying we should've drafted Jennings, Derozan, Holiday, or Lawson. Also, we were still terrible both of those years so we could've drafted any position we wanted to and we could have said we were drafting for need.

Drafting Hill was a joke. Just like the Knicks the past 12yrs

knickscity wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Was there a poll before or right after the draft? Hindsight Faried was clearly the better pick. The kid is a beast

Hindsight David Lee at 30 was a much better pick than Marvin Williams at 2

Ok ...

So where did you vote in that poll after their first seasons?

so of us actually saw shumpert for what he was/is. A good defensive player and a weak and inefficient offensive player. His TS sucked in college and guess what ... it still sucks.

Most people saw faried as an undersized pf, he is playing well above expectations.

I would have been happy with either player, mainly because the team needed some defense in the back court more than another forward.

The Knicks have Melo playing pf now that is undersized.

VCoug wrote:

3G4G wrote:

VCoug wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Knicks need was at 2-guard. PF wasn't on their mind with Amare coming off a 26ppg season

You never draft for need, always draft for talent.

Disagree....had we drafted for need in the 2008 and 2009 draft we would have potentially had(Eric Gordon/Lopez/Mayo or Lawson/Holiday/Curry) factoring trading up if necessary. We needed any combination of a Guard/Center/Point Guard in either of those drafts which in the end covers the talent aspect too.

This is eliminating guys like....

Hibbert/Batum/Jordan/Dragic/Ryan Anderson/George Hill/Omer Asik...arguably as good as talents as Gallo

and

Gerald Henderson/Taj Gibson/Buddinger/Danny Green/Jeff Teague/Marcus Thornton/B.J. Mullens...arguably as good as talents as Hill and Douglas

All filling more of our needs at the time. Keep in mind needs don't always mean positioned player, it can also mean what skillset does a player bring to a team lacking such(i.e. rebounding, interior defense, perimeter defense, shooting, leadership, etc etc)

Talents that weren't hyped as much coming into the draft, who were picked later and/or around our selections in those drafts or players who could have been draft with additional pick(s) and/or acquired pick(s) as in the case of Toney Douglas. Talent also may not cover UPSIDE...as it is vague it could assume Talent as in NBA ready BPA.

I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion that we drafted for talent in those drafts, particularly 2009. My recollection is that most people thought Jordan Hill was kind of a reach and a lot of posters here were saying we should've drafted Jennings, Derozan, Holiday, or Lawson. Also, we were still terrible both of those years so we could've drafted any position we wanted to and we could have said we were drafting for need.