In the article it basically says that Mullens was able to go down to their D league team--run the same sets--focus on specific goals and get comfortable playing with a green light--when he came up he felt more comfortable entering the NBA game.

This is why I think Jordan Hill should be in the D league. He needs to go put up some nice 20-10 games--let him just play basketball for 35 minutes-- get comfortable in a game situation and perhaps the Knick coaches will see something in the games he is not showing in practice. I think it's a big waste not using him--atleast let him develop--that is what that league is all about. That GM from Oklahoma is probably the best and or smartest GM in the league. I don''t know who makes the ultimate decision for the Knicks--Dol;an Mike D DW who knows--but Jordan Hill and the Knicks would best be served by a 5-7 game stint in the D league imho.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:The thing is, is that we share an affiliate. So, Hill wouldn't be playing according to what we want, it would be according to what that team wants. Hence, Hill is getting more in practice going against Lee, Harrington, etc. and running sets that we use that he will be getting against d'leaguers running sets we don't run.

that's the biggest reason. I also didn't know that only 1st and 2nd year players could be sent down. Too bad, cause Curry needs the playing time.

And that's silly. You gotta be able to send veterans down. The young players maybe benefit from wisdom (ok, maybe no in Curry's case) and the veterans can get back into playing shape.

Can we use the Marc J. Spears article about Hill, McGrady, and Houston to speculate that Hill has not shown enough progress for the Knicks to want to keep him, or would we just give him up "reluctantly" in the trade (if there really is interest on our end such a trade) to dump restrictive contracts like those of Curry/Jeffries?