TMS wrote:

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:lol @ all of you idiots.

lopez is averaging 19.2 pts and 9.1 rebs with 2.2 blks on a team with a young pg and no starting caliber 2/3/4.

will gallo ever average 19.2 ppg in a season? he has the system and the coach that encourages scoring...

but until he does, stop saying lopez has a ceiling...

agreed, u can't call Lopez a limited upside prospect & then say Gallo's got unlimited potential in the same breathe... what 2nd year player is putting up stats like Lopez is right now?... if Jordan Hill were to put up stats like that in his 2nd season we'd be hyping him like there's no tomorrow... let's be fair in our projections for these kids... Lopez is an excellent looking young prospect, & so is Gallo... right now, it's pretty obvious that Lopez is more advanced in his development... who has more upside at this point is anyone's guess.

fair enough.... but by watching certain players play, I think you can get a sense of one's upside... but hey, that debate can go on and on..

i think u can get a feel of a guy's potential, sure... but u can't define it & say with any sort of certainty how good a young player will or won't be... it's all just best guesses we're giving here... i don't think we need to be making comparisons at this point anyway, this stuff only appeases those who wanna justify the Gallo pick at #6, or those who still maintain it was a bad choice... alot of us, including myself, had other choices in mind when it was our turn to pick, but we don't waste time arguing about woulda, coulda & shoulda... let's focus on what we do have & let the Nets worry about Brook Lopez... all i know is Gallinari is a damn good looking young prospect & i'm happy as hell to have him... i know u share the same feelings too.

of course and life would be great if we can have both he and lopez......

djsunyc wrote:

tkf wrote:

djsunyc wrote:right b/c a 2nd year player is solely responsible for a team's record.

there is no correlation. the nets have no vets. if the nets had hughes + harrington, there's a good chance they are .500 at this point.

the knicks are competetive b/c of hughes + harrington + lee - gallo is the supplemental player to this squad.

i knew you guys would bring up record. that has nothing to do with this conversation.

the issue i disagree with is that brook lopez already has hit his ceiling in his 2nd year...where this supposed ceiling is pretty darn good. meanwhile gallo is this demi-god that has no boundaries...one of the greatest ever when that's based on nothing but hope and dreams.

not just him, you have CDR, lee, T-will. I mean would you not say that brook is probably the best of that bunch? well he may not be soley responsible for the 0-18, but he does shoulder a lot of the blame.. because had that same team started out 18-2, you would be claiming he was leading them to victory.. Honestly, how many young core's in the NBA have been that bad?

you say, you knew I would bring up record and it has nothing to do with this conversation? it sure as hell does.. it has everything to do with this conversation.. you can't have it both ways man.. lopez is putting up those numbers because he is the focal point of that team, he is getting all the minutes and all the chances to do good or bad. so if you are going to point out his numbers, then you have to look at the record as well.....

the issue i disagree with is that brook lopez already has hit his ceiling in his 2nd year...where this supposed ceiling is pretty darn good. meanwhile gallo is this demi-god that has no boundaries...one of the greatest ever when that's based on nothing but hope and dreams.

ok, you dissagree, but I think people look at brook and although he has good numbers the guy seems to just be ordinary in a lot of areas, can he get better. yes! but I just don't see the tools of a guy who is going to excel at anything, but again, that is just my opinion...

sorry man...no way does record indicate anything here. their record is not an indication of their young guys talent level. it ain't easy to win in the nba without vets. if hughes + harrington aren't playing like this, the knicks have 0 wins.

0 wins? gallo pretty much demolished the suns by himself and pretty much saved the knicks from blowing the portland game... I am not sure about 0 wins sir... But lets not act like the nets dont' have vets, they still were losing with harris, dooling and alston... but I guess next you are going to tell me how good harrington and hughes are.. but I am cool with that.. I get to hear knick fans actually defend these guys for a change..

Yeah, Lopez still cant handle a double team. Rose still cant make a jumpshot consistently. Young players have flaws in their game. To make blanket statement like Lopez will never be able to handle double teams because he couldn't handle it in Stanford and his first couple of years against veterans in the NBA is just not fair. Lopez is 21, not 28. He is not even close to being in his prime.

As an objective third party on this(neither a huge Knicks fan or a Nets fan, follow both equally; like to follow NCAA, the draft and young players in the league), I think its a tad homerish to prop up Gallo and completely disregard the second year player on the other side of the river just because he is putting up stats on a bad team when the average age of their starting lineup is 23, the youngest in the NBA and when that team was completely ravaged by injuries, including to its best player and is in a complete tank mode for 2010. Fans are especially homerish when it comes to comparing prospects on their teams and I get that. No one is saying Gallo is a bust, at least I'm not, but lets not be irrational and completely devalue what a young player is doing just so that you can justify the Knicks passing on him.

People are only now saying Lopez is a high ceiling guy based off his early success but IMO nothing else suggests he's special. What particular attributes would you say makes Lopez one of the possible special prospects? What exceptional talents does he possess that would hint at a possible stellar future?

huskies01 wrote:Um, the fact that at 21 years old, he is averaging 19/9? The fact that he is a low post center, a dying breed in the NBA but a breed that has proven that it can win championships in this league or at the very least be a important cog in one? The fact that he has exceptionally soft hands for a big and can score in the low post and has a jumpshot from 15 feet? The fact that he is the second leading shot blocker in the league and protects the basket? The fact that in the last 8 games, he has put up 21/10/1, 25/10/1, 19/6/3, 31/14/2, 16/6/1, 26/12/0, 24/11/2, 32/14/2 against good defensive bigs like Noah, Chandler, Bynum, Gasol, Oden and Pryzbilla? The fact that he is such a terrific FT shooter which is only going to enhance his productivity as a low post player? The fact that he is doing all this facing double teams every night because the rest of his team sucks? The fact that according to Hollinger's PER, he is the 20th best player in the NBA?

I find it pretty funny that some here expect Brook Lopez to be a finished product, to pass out of double teams, to shoot a high percentage, to be a guy who other teams game plan for, to lead his team to victories but have no such requirements for Gallo even though they both came from the same draft and they both have their strengths and weaknesses and are 4 months apart in age. Lopez might have played more games than Gallo, but at the end of the day he is still 21. He is still learning how to be a low post player, which is incredibly more difficult than shooting open three point shots.

I think djsunyc said it best -

the issue i disagree with is that brook lopez already has hit his ceiling in his 2nd year...where this supposed ceiling is pretty darn good. meanwhile gallo is this demi-god that has no boundaries...one of the greatest ever when that's based on nothing but hope and dreams.

Everything I've said about Brook Lopez is based on facts. 19/9/2, fact. The 10 game stretch where he is averaging 20/10/2/52%, fact. I love Gallinari, his skills and the mismatch he provides every time he steps foot on the floor, but everything people have mentioned about Gallo is based on his potential, his high ceiling and HOPE. It's good to have hope but sometimes it doesn't become reality.

The Ilgauskas comparison is spot on because they have the same limited athleticism, but both are big long rangy players. Both are average rebounders for their size. Both have about the same shooting %

Im not focused on how many points he scores or how many shots he takes. I'm looking at how he impacts the game when he's on the floor. Go watch some Nets games and get back to me

djsunyc wrote:what are you basing lopez' impact on fish? wins/losses? b/c that's a trivial stance...

However Lopez does plod, he's an average rebounder and his offense is mechanical and predictable. The problem is those were his exact knocks in college.

Lopez is already a good player, but the ceiling comment is that he will never be the main guy on a bigtime team. Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Kendrick Perkins... its hard to compare because there are so few true centers in the league, but that "caliber" player rather than that type of player.

As for Gallo the "hopes" in him are that he's answered the big questions about himself.
Can he defend? Block shots? check
Is he tough enough to fight for tough rebounds and bang in the paint? check
When teams put smaller athletic guy on him and he beat them off the dribble? Shoot over them? check
Is he athletic enough to create his own shot? check
Is he one of the best shooters in the game? check

Gallo has a looooong way to go before he's a stud, but he's already good and has the tools to be all star year after year. He can definatly be a 25 point 7 rebound 5 assist 1.5 steal 1.5 block type player

He's not yet, and Lopez is ahead of him overall... right now.

huskies01 wrote:

fishmike wrote:do you watch the Nets? Who else on that team is taking shots? Oooohhh 19/9. If Lopez is the leading scorer its because someone has to be.

The Ilgauskas comparison is spot on because they have the same limited athleticism, but both are big long rangy players. Both are average rebounders for their size. Both have about the same shooting %

Im not focused on how many points he scores or how many shots he takes. I'm looking at how he impacts the game when he's on the floor. Go watch some Nets games and get back to me

First of all, stop acting like a douche. I couldn't care less how big of a contributor you are here or how much posts you have. Just because I only have 20 posts in this forum, doesn't mean I deserve a condescending reply. If you want to act like a jackass, I can get down and dirty with the best of em. I won't because I'm trying to have a honest discussion here as a rational adult. You can see that from my last two posts.

Secondly, yes, I do watch Nets games. I've watched every single Nets game this season and last season, just like I've watched every single Knicks game the last two years. Depending on the opponent, I DVR one and watch it one after the other without checking the scores. So, yeah, I do know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to both these teams.

The Ilgauskas comparison is laughable because at no point in time has Ilgauskas put up the kind of stats as Lopez has in his first two years. Just because they have a similar game, it makes them comparable? Beyond stupid. Tim Duncan is also a big long rangy player with limited athleticism. Is Brook Lopez and Zydrunas Ilgauskas comparable to Tim Duncan? Maybe to someone who is delusional. Saying that Lopez's ceiling is Zydrunas Ilgauskas because he looks and plays like him is completely out of this world. Brad Miller, Kendrick Perkins....My God. Have YOU watched a Nets game?

Someone has to score, yeah? Right and he is scoring for a team, you said, that has no talent. So, why exactly is that bad? He has no help and is getting double teamed because the Nets are dead last in shooting and yet he is dropping 20/10 on everyone. That is a testament to the talent he has right now and something that he can develop over the years. That's bad? Hilarious.

Lopez is an average rebounder and his offense is mechanical and predictable.....right now. Can you predict the future? Do you know if he will improve on that or not? How can you say that he wont with such conviction? Because of what he did as a 18/19 year old in college? How many players have been terrible shooters in college and the first couple of years in the pro only to develop their shot over time? How many players have developed a post game in the pros when they had no such game to speak of in college? Plenty.

Again, I keep coming back to this. Gallo COULD average 25 and 7. Gallo COULD become a all star year after year. But Lopez is not impressive because he is putting up 19/9 with less than 50% shooting right now. Gallo is being judged on what he COULD become while Lopez is being judged on what he is now, not what he COULD become.

Can Lopez defend and block? Check
Can he score in the low post? Check
Can he draw double teams in the post opening up wide open looks for shooters? Check
Can he draw shot blockers away from the rim by shooting jumpers? Check
Is he tough enough to fight for rebounds and bang in the paint? Check because that's where he plays

I can do the same thing. Comparing two players who play nothing alike and pumping up one because he does things the other can't is the definition of retarded. You want to compare players, yeah? Here are some comparisons for you for Gallo. Hedo Turkoglu and Mike Dunleavy Jr.

Lopez is everything you say and more. Hugs!

huskies01 wrote:Hilarious. Obviously nothing to debate over here.

you expect back and forth after this?

huskies01 wrote:First of all, stop acting like a douche. I couldn't care less how big of a contributor you are here or how much posts you have. Just because I only have 20 posts in this forum, doesn't mean I deserve a condescending reply. If you want to act like a jackass, I can get down and dirty with the best of em. I won't because I'm trying to have a honest discussion here as a rational adult. You can see that from my last two posts.

Think you may have overreacted a bit.

orangeblobman wrote:Look. Gallo is simply a superstar in the making. He will be better than Dirk. No one, no one can deny this.

careful. yoiu risk being huskied. it's worse than being darkoed.

fishmike wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:Look. Gallo is simply a superstar in the making. He will be better than Dirk. No one, no one can deny this.

no he's not. Not even close. Thats the point. Gallo is just as close to Kyle Korver as he his to Dirk. Your not helping here dude.

The good part about what we have seen from Gallo this year is he's answered some big doubts about how good he can be. (Except you) Nobody thought he could be an impact player on defense and or show the athleticism to break down guys off the dribble or create his own shot. He's shown those abilities this year and thats very exciting. Showing ability and producing on a nightly basis as two things that are VERY far apart.

However I think because Gallo has shown he has the ability to do some of these things it puts his ceiling much higher that originally thought.

Fishmike, i have a headache from all of this. So what I will do is just stop defending Mr. Gallo.

But I will leave with these words: Gallo will be a superstar, is so clear to me.