Fields will never be a star (my opinion) because he doesnt have a great first step, isnt an above the rim athlete and cant create his own shot. He can however be a very good rotation player for 10 years in this year and part of an elite team. Fields is the kind of role player that helps you win titles. Tell me you couldnt envision him winning a title with the Spurs, Lakers or Celtics?

It makes you nuts when these teams get guys like Fields with last first rounders or 2nd rounders. While other teams are throwing **** on the wall hoping it sticks and they get the next diamond in the rough (who will probably take 4 years to develop) the SMART team draft guys who can just play. Sure they may not be stars, but they can PLAY. Fields is one of those guys, and he's making Walsh and the Knicks look really smart.

Thrilled to have him.

The guys who aren't getting much playing time aren't playing behind world beaters. I can see why they aren't starting, but when you haven't beat out Mbah a Moute for backup minutes, you don't deserve more playing time.

Smith's numbers aren't all-star type numbers, but they're good. He's shooting 55% and pulling down a lot of boards from the shooting guard position. His d is solid as is his passing - and he makes smart plays and is a clutch performer. In a better draft, he might not be the third best rookie, but he's definitely playing like the lottery pick Isaiah traded away.

AnubisADL wrote:

martin wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:He's easily playing like a top 5 pick..He's numbers aren't going to light up broadway, but he's has been as clutch as they come..Talk about timely plays, if he was in the MOB, his nick nmae would be "Larry (big play) Fields..

SMH

You serious man? Landry Fields is not a lottery pick. You should try watching other teams rookies.

expand on that. What are those lottery picks doing to help their team win? Cause we all know there is straight up concrete chatter that Landry is doing exactly that for the Knicks.

The only rookies getting 20+ minutes a game are John Wall, Eric Bledsoe, Evan Turner, Wesley Johnson, Landry Fields, DeMarcus Cousins, and Derrick Favors. Hard to put up stats sitting on the bench.

Those other guys are expected to carry a large load for their teams to be successful. We have Amare, Felton, Gallo, and Chandler carrying the load here.

Let's compare Fields to the #2 pick in the draft - Evan Turner, a 6'7" SG. Both are 22 years old (Fields is 4 months older):

1. 30 mins, 9.4 pts on 44%, 10% 3pt (1-10), 6.1 rebs, 73% FT (30/41), 2.3 ass, 1.9 TO, 3PF, .7stl, .4blk
2. 28 ins, 10.7pts on 56%, 33% 3pt (11-33), 6.5 rebs, 82% FT (23/28), 1.5 ass, 1.2 TO, 2PF, .8stl, 3blk

Combine results
1. Vert 34.5, lane agility 11.06, sprint 3.27,
2. Vert 39.0, ?, ? (anyone know?)

Fields is number 2 in both above.

misterearl wrote:The Answer Man Cleans Up Some Random Labeling

"...Fields will never be a star (my opinion) because he doesnt have a great first step, isnt an above the rim athlete and cant create his own shot."

fishmike - if Fields isn't an "over the rim athlete" how in da hell did he catch that looping over the rim pass from Felton and throw it down with room to spare?

sheesh

allanfan20 - "I will say, the way he got those plays wasn't special, but they were BIG."

By todays ridiculous Playstation standards, Walt Frazier was nothing special when he came out of Southern Illinois either. He had zero athleticism. He did not have exceptional first step but he knew how to use a pump fake. Walt simply made fundamentally sound plays. Never flashy or flamboyant. He never dunked. But he would lay it up soft as a baby's rear end. Clyde did nothing special either. Except win.

Forget Clyde Drexler. Landry Fields has inherited a rare thread of the fundamentally sound Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of Walt Frazier.

I'm glad you've given up on the Drexler thing.

I didn't see Clyde play much, but my impression was that he was more of a lead guard. And a much more aggressive dresser.

We don't need to compare Fields to anyone else - he's a special rookie who is growing by the game. He had a great feed to Amar'e tonight and several HUGE rebounds down the stretch. He's a great player. He and Turiaf are the glue of this team.

crzymdups - c'mon, admit it, you didn't see Drexler at all. Although he had a decent handle he played off guard next to Alvin Franklin at U of H. With the Blazers he ran with Terry Porter, Jim Paxson and yo' boy Darnell Valentine. he was NOT a lead guard in the NBA. But he COULD advance the ball and knew what do to with it.

Agressive dresser? C'mon dude, it was the early eighties. Everyone was headed to the disco. Everyone dressed fly.

But back to Mr. Fields... the best part about his contribution to the New Knicks is that he is consistent. Because he has a professional and confident approach, he can be trusted to do the right thing. He is our best rebounder.

Even his mistakes look good, because you know he will hustle back on defense.

misterearl wrote:"I didn't see Clyde play much, but my impression was that he was more of a lead guard. And a much more aggressive dresser."

crzymdups - c'mon, admit it, you didn't see Drexler at all. Although he had a decent handle he played off guard next to Alvin Franklin at U of H. With the Blazers he ran with Terry Porter, Jim Paxson and yo' boy Darnell Valentine. he was NOT a lead guard in the NBA. But he COULD advance the ball and knew what do to with it.

Agressive dresser? C'mon dude, it was the early eighties. Everyone was headed to the disco. Everyone dressed fly.

But back to Mr. Fields... the best part about his contribution to the New Knicks is that he is consistent. Because he has a professional and confident approach, he can be trusted to do the right thing. He is our best rebounder.

Even his mistakes look good, because you know he will hustle back on defense.

I was talking about Walt Clyde Frazier. Your *other* ridiculous Landry Fields comparison.

I saw plenty of Clyde Drexler. I've seen a little Frazier from highlight reels. I just always refer to Walt Frazier as "Clyde" after years of Knicks radio and telecasts.

misterearl wrote:The Answer Man Cleans Up Some Random Labeling

"...Fields will never be a star (my opinion) because he doesnt have a great first step, isnt an above the rim athlete and cant create his own shot."

fishmike - if Fields isn't an "over the rim athlete" how in da hell did he catch that looping over the rim pass from Felton and throw it down with room to spare?

sheesh

allanfan20 - "I will say, the way he got those plays wasn't special, but they were BIG."

By todays ridiculous Playstation standards, Walt Frazier was nothing special when he came out of Southern Illinois either. He had zero athleticism. He did not have exceptional first step but he knew how to use a pump fake. Walt simply made fundamentally sound plays. Never flashy or flamboyant. He never dunked. But he would lay it up soft as a baby's rear end. Clyde did nothing special either. Except win.

Forget Clyde Drexler. Landry Fields has inherited a rare thread of the fundamentally sound Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of Walt Frazier.

Fields can jump, but he's not explosive. He just isnt. Following a slasher to the rim for a putback dunk is nice, but you make him out to be things that he isnt. Celebrate was he is.

Is a nickname in order?

No, fields is not him, but the type of player that just gets the job done without fanfair. He could take over a game and perhaps Fields will develop further.

He is a rookie. He will get better!

He lead pac 10 in scoring and rebounding. Why he fell is a mystery.

I'd like to see if Rautins has it yet. We need another point guard. TD not getting it done.

I would dispute the idea of Fields never becoming a "star"... though we should be specific of how we define that. If we mean all-star - fans vote in the starters. :) (I could see such a cult following forming around this guy that he gets voted in!)

Of course, given his rookie numbers, you might extrapolate him easily having a few 14-18ppg years - and on a major winning team, you could see him getting voted in by coaches.

He may never become a go-to scorer on a good team; he doesn't seem to have that kind of dominant move or first step. But that's okay.