from the PG position--I like Jeff Teague as a combo who can replace Nate for cheap who can slide to the 1 but there is flaw all over the rest of them. Some are too small some are too slow some can shoot some cant dribble--it's like swiss cheese prospects.

sorry, i dunno much about the draft. who is evans?

Definitly a lot of prospects, but if you do your homework you could find a solid pg. Last years drafts had scoring pgs, this year it seems to be more play makers. This is where IT would have help, MDA's draft resume doesn't sit well with me at all, and Walsh has one HOF and a two time all star(rik smits) to his credit which does'nt bode well considering he was there forever. I will also give walsh a little more credit cause the pacers were a playoff team for the most part during his tenure.

Evans is 2 guard who can play the point. I dont see him as a pure point guard. He's kind of in the Mayo class in that regard. Or even Brandon Roy but not as good obviously.

On Steph Curry - I don't see any of the negativity surrounding him holding him back at all - in fact, like any good athlete with pride, he'll probably wind up using it as motivation. And I definitely don't see a swiss cheese prospect here... "He's not athletic enough, he's too slow and he's not a real PG." Those are the major knocks. Well, I'd say he's at least on par athletically with guys like Stockton, Nash, Mark Jackson along with countless other successful PGs that were never known for their athleticism. He's no bolt of lightning out there but neither were those guys. Steph gets to the basket (he went to the FT line almost 7.5 times a game), he managed to play some defense out there (2.5 steals/game is a very impressive number) and he's clearly shown he has more than enough athleticism in the tank to basically do whatever he wants to out there offensively. As for the "he's not a real PG" thing, well that's what I thought myself originally but I'd have to say now that's clearly not the case. He has a good handle that he maintains & doesn't give up too quickly, he possesses very good court vision evident by some of the tremendous passes he threw to all his sub-par teammates last year, and the assist to turnover ratio wasn't terrible by any means, esp. considering this was the first time he ever played PG steady in his life (the kid averaged an impressive 5.6 asst. against 3.7 TOs). And if strength ever becomes an issue, he and the S&C coaches will sit down and come up with a plan to get him stronger, so I don't really buy the "he's too weak" knock either. If he needs to get a little stronger, he'll get a little stronger. "He's not tall enough, he's only 6'1" - ain't buying this knock either. First of all, 6'1" isn't terrible size for a PG. Not great, but not terrible. It's adequate. Second, I just read where Steph's father Dell said his son "is a legit 6'3" in shoes and you don't play the game w/o shoes." That's true and I think a father should know his son right? So there you go. So much for the so-called "negatives." Heck, with a straight face, I just spun most of those negatives into positives. Speaking of positives, you wanna talk about all the positive things Curry brings to the table? I mean do we have about an hour? He's gonna be a good NBA player. I just have this feeling in my gut that he'll be off the board by the time we pick. Hope I'm wrong...

[Edited by - finestrg on 05-25-2009 3:32 PM]

Eric Maynor will NOT be a backup in the NBA. I GUARENTEE you that.

Posted by Ira:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Uptown:

Evans is 2 guard who can play the point. I dont see him as a pure point guard. He's kind of in the Mayo class in that regard. Or even Brandon Roy but not as good obviously.

He's got an exceptional dribble for his size. What he would need to do is learn to distribute first and not pound the ball into the ground. I think he can shoot but he does have a nasty glitch in his form[torso down] that would have to be rectified. His arm motion is fine but he shoots off of one leg while he fades back. I think balance work with a pro trainer and some Allan Houston mentoring[or whoever worked with Wilson] would do wonders for him. He's got the body the long arms the dribble and the IT factor. He's NOT overly athletic but if he can play PG--he has more than enough and is a mismatch nightmare on both ends at the 1 guard.
If you put Wilson Chandler at 2 and Tyreke Evans at 1--that is one helluva nightmare for opposing clubs. That would put us at 6-5 6-8 6-10 in the backcourt and on the wing.



IF the Knicks could pull off getting Evans and Mullens--I would have new found faith.

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 05-25-2009 12:00 PM]

What you seem to be saying is that, if he gets better at all the things he isn't good at, he'll be a good point guard. I'm glad he can handle the ball well, but I don't want to take it on faith that he'll develop a shot and develop the ability (and desire) to distribute the ball. He looks more like a shooting guard who can play the point.

He's 6-5 220 with great penetration skills and a glorious handle for his size. Chandler was a brick layer when he got here[and evans is not] --they need to tweak his shot and teach him to think pass first----Im already working with a lot there. Steph Curry doesnt have the penetration skills steph curry doesnt have the physicality hes not even that good of a ballhandler--Evans is superior. On top of it Evans has a chance to be a great defender. There is more to work with with evans. to me his flaws are correctable Ty Lawson isnt going to be 6-5 220 neither are any of them. I like bigger players.

briggs would you say evans goes almost exclusively with his right? i remember watching him this year and thinking he didn't have a very good left. that being said, i like the intangibles he brings with his size and athleticism and the fact that he could probably play point. your thoughts on derozan, i remember you were on high on him. he seems like a prototypical 2, and given the knicks haven't had a good one since h20/spree, i would take a waiver on him if still available.

i think curry will be a good 6th man at the very worst.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BigSm00th:

briggs would you say evans goes almost exclusively with his right? i remember watching him this year and thinking he didn't have a very good left. that being said, i like the intangibles he brings with his size and athleticism and the fact that he could probably play point. your thoughts on derozan, i remember you were on high on him. he seems like a prototypical 2, and given the knicks haven't had a good one since h20/spree, i would take a waiver on him if still available.

i think curry will be a good 6th man at the very worst.

My top 5 were/are griffin thabeet derozan evans mullens--what I want the Knicks to do is take a very serious extra hard look at mullens--forget any pre-conceived thoughts on the player and evaluate what he is now.

With all due seriousness, why don't you try to somehow get into being a scout? You watch more games (it sounds like) than most here and have had an eye for talent. I'll give you your due. You may post a bit excessively ;-) but you have picked some good ones.

It sort of drives me crazy, seeing that people on the boards (e.g. Briggs) pick better than many GM's. I am down with Gallo though. We really really should have paid to get Jordan last year.

Anyway, you need to work the Knicks phones, at this point you are preaching to the choir (I mean that in a good way.)

EMS

Posted by Finestrg:

On Steph Curry - I don't see any of the negativity surrounding him holding him back at all - in fact, like any good athlete with pride, he'll probably wind up using it as motivation. And I definitely don't see a swiss cheese prospect here... "He's not athletic enough, he's too slow and he's not a real PG." Those are the major knocks. Well, I'd say he's at least on par athletically with guys like Stockton, Nash, Mark Jackson along with countless other successful PGs that were never known for their athleticism. He's no bolt of lightning out there but neither were those guys. Steph gets to the basket (he went to the FT line almost 7.5 times a game), he managed to play some defense out there (2.5 steals/game is a very impressive number) and he's clearly shown he has more than enough athleticism in the tank to basically do whatever he wants to out there offensively. As for the "he's not a real PG" thing, well that's what I thought myself originally but I'd have to say now that's clearly not the case. He has a good handle that he maintains & doesn't give up too quickly, he possesses very good court vision evident by some of the tremendous passes he threw to all his sub-par teammates last year, and the assist to turnover ratio wasn't terrible by any means, esp. considering this was the first time he ever played PG steady in his life (the kid averaged an impressive 5.6 asst. against 3.7 TOs). And if strength ever becomes an issue, he and the S&C coaches will sit down and come up with a plan to get him stronger, so I don't really buy the "he's too weak" knock either. If he needs to get a little stronger, he'll get a little stronger. "He's not tall enough, he's only 6'1" - ain't buying this knock either. First of all, 6'1" isn't terrible size for a PG. Not great, but not terrible. It's adequate. Second, I just read where Steph's father Dell said his son "is a legit 6'3" in shoes and you don't play the game w/o shoes." That's true and I think a father should know his son right? So there you go. So much for the so-called "negatives." Heck, with a straight face, I just spun most of those negatives into positives. Speaking of positives, you wanna talk about all the positive things Curry brings to the table? I mean do we have about an hour? He's gonna be a good NBA player. I just have this feeling in my gut that he'll be off the board by the time we pick. Hope I'm wrong...

[Edited by - finestrg on 05-25-2009 3:32 PM]

excellent post... pretty much how I fee.. at 6'3, he will be able to get his shot off on pretty much any PG in the league...

Posted by nixluva:

I like this draft cuz I think there's a great chance for us to get a very good Guard no matter how the draft breaks down, someone good is gonna be available. Evans, Curry, Holliday, DeRozan etc. We can't really lose with any of them.

Now if we're talking about what I think will benefit us the most a player like Curry that might be able to run MDA's offense most like Nash did or an athletic SG like DeRozan who just might give us a Kobe like offensive threat. It's a tough call, but I still say we can't lose. What if it's Holliday? Do we really have a problem with adding a kid with his talents? I'm just gonna sit back for once not really worried about the draft as much. There are so many good options that will likely be there when we pick.

Yup- I think that we should come out of this with a nice player who will eventually be a starter for the Knicks.

There are a number of players I would be satisfied with at this slot. You have to have a lot of faith in the Knicks' talent evaluation team this draft because there are so many players we can legitimately choose. It would be nice if we could see more of the team or group workouts prospects are going through. I have only seen some of Holiday's so far.

I think you can take any player in this draft and rip his game apart if you want to= you are just looking for the right fit- athletically and mentally for your system and your city (Some cities have a way of hurting a player's game- we just happen to be one of them.).