HIGH BBALL IQ
Ability to spread the floor and run the PnR

However, alone, Walters just does not have the ability to defend the PG position or defend the SG position either as a tweener
He is like Redick with Calderon's size
Even a player like Greviez Vasquez has good size, produces good stats, but just isn't a good PG, in fact NO's backup PG makes the team better with his speed/quickness/ability to penetrate/set up the team
In the right system, with the right players around them, I think Walters would be a solid rotation player, however, I just cannot see him meshing well with what we have
I think speed/quickness is more important than the flaws around Walters, while he could still develop in to a solid pro but a tweener like Redick over time

I do think I was wrong about Kelly Olynick's and he is in fact a top PF/C while closer to a C comparable to a bigger Scola and somewhere between a less athletic Noah/Dirk/Pau Gasol
I would love to team both of them up together if possible but I just cannot see Olynick passing the 10 pick of the draft
Our only tradeable asset is Tyson Chandler and I am not sure if you can get more than a trade exemption and 2nd round picks for his overpaid contract

RonRon wrote:I can totally see why you would love to pair Nate Wolters with Kelly Olynk's together so much because of their compatibility and skill sets
It would change the dynamics on how to play team ball and give us other weapons besides a HIGH ISO system/philosophy
That is 2 players out of 3 that would change the philosophy of how we can play TEAM BALL

HIGH BBALL IQ
Ability to spread the floor and run the PnR

However, alone, Walters just does not have the ability to defend the PG position or defend the SG position either as a tweener
He is like Redick with Calderon's size
Even a player like Greviez Vasquez has good size, produces good stats, but just isn't a good PG, in fact NO's backup PG makes the team better with his speed/quickness/ability to penetrate/set up the team
In the right system, with the right players around them, I think Walters would be a solid rotation player, however, I just cannot see him meshing well with what we have
I think speed/quickness is more important than the flaws around Walters, while he could still develop in to a solid pro but a tweener like Redick over time

I do think I was wrong about Kelly Olynick's and he is in fact a top PF/C while closer to a C comparable to a bigger Scola and somewhere between a less athletic Noah/Dirk/Pau Gasol
I would love to team both of them up together if possible but I just cannot see Olynick passing the 10 pick of the draft
Our only tradeable asset is Tyson Chandler and I am not sure if you can get more than a trade exemption and 2nd round picks for his overpaid contract

There is no way the Knicks will take on 2 21 year old players right now--one of which in reality is unattainable. This draft is not very good--try remocking it after all of those kids decide to go back--5-6 guys who were destined for round 2 now sit in round 1. While you never know what a team likes and their ability to get it---again unless we make a trade that includes the pick--Wolters becomes 1 of few players who I think is legit in what we need who is available and the true possibility of him being there.

in regards to playing burke...from what i remember, burke just had an off shooting night. i dont think it had anything to do with wolters...again, thats only what i remembered

what hurts nate is that he played in a cupcake conference...so i cant take his stats too seriously...what impressed me was the highlights of the game vs washington - a team with REAL athletes.

i think the kid is a pro..despite my concerns about his defense. see i want the knicks to acquire a defensive PG to stop the rondos, DRoses etc...a beverly type...Wolters is NOT that...however, i do think he has enough athletic ability, size and anticipation skills to get by in the NBA

to me, id rather have Larkin...i was surpised he went pro because i DONT think hell be a lottery pick. if he falls to #24 id rather take larkin

BigDaddyG wrote:

callmened wrote:i just brought up the comparison to ridnour because he plays and kinda looks like him (ehh..maybe not really)...i agree with the comparison to nash regarding pace...thats the ONLY thing i appreciated about his poor outing vs michigan...he never forced things or seemed outta control

what hurts nate is that he played in a cupcake conference...so i cant take his stats too seriously...what impressed me was the highlights of the game vs washington - a team with REAL athletes.

i think the kid is a pro..despite my concerns about his defense. see i want the knicks to acquire a defensive PG to stop the rondos, DRoses etc...a beverly type...Wolters is NOT that...however, i do think he has enough athletic ability, size and anticipation skills to get by in the NBA

to me, id rather have Larkin...i was surpised he went pro because i DONT think hell be a lottery pick. if he falls to #24 id rather take larkin

I see a lot of Ridnour in his game, at least on the college level. The one thing you have to watch for with Wolters is his ability to score inside the paint. He can afford to utilize to his size in college, but that isn't going to fly so much in the pros. It's the same problem Ridnour has had throughout his career. Nash learned to adjust tho, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. I see Wolters being a soldi guy off the bench and I wouldn't mind having him in place of, say someone like James White. But I think I'm leaning more to using our pick for size at this point. Some like Deng or Withey. Maybe even Steven Adams.

The big guys in the back of the draft are really project big men with little upside IMHO. I dont see why people compare Wolters to Ridnour. Hes a bigger player. Hes easily 2-3 inches taller and 30+ pounds heavier. That is why you see such a disparity in their rebounding #s Im pretty sure Ridn our went 14 when he came out. Its pretty rare to find 6-4 PGs with the skills Nate has. Can anyone name the last 6-4 PG who averaged 20-6-5 and shot close to 50% yet did not turn the ball over despite handling it most minutes of every game? This guy reminds me a great deal of Steve Nash coming out of Santa Clara--he did go 15 b ut was not an immediate NBA success--but the rest is history. Id like to take a stab at the next Steve nash

ChuckBuck wrote:No offense Briggs, or to Nate Wolters, but this guy looks exceptionally slow. Not saying he's going to be a bust or even a bad player, but just from first glance he looks like an end of the bench guy. 2nd Round talent.

Doesn't have the explosiveness or quickness to keep up with today's NBA point guard.

I just can't see him checking Tony Parker, Kyrie Irving, Chris Paul, Mike Conley, Jrue Holiday, Russell Westbrook, Damian Lillard etc

And that's just the upper echelon. Nevermind Deron Williams, Goran Dragic, Greivis Vasquez, Ty Lawson, Jeremy Lin, Ray Felton, Ricky Rubio.

Not saying he won't be good, but he doesn't look like he can keep up with guards defensively on the NBA level.

Man how do Steve Nash and Steph Curry survive in the NBA? They are slow as turtles.

Just don't think this particular one will be an impactful one.

Steve Nash's measurements didn't jump off the page pre-draft, but he was widely praised pre-draft for instincts as a true point guard right away. Don't forget Steve Nash first sport was soccer, so he already had superior hand-eye coordination and ball handling skills.

What scouts said about Nash before he was drafted:

Nash started off the year in a big way leading Santa Clara to a huge upset of
defending national champs UCLA. He is a great ballhandler and showed surprising
quickness at the Desert Classic pre-draft camp. He is a very good shooter whose
stats went down for his senior year. This is due to having to force so much playing
on a relatively weak team.

Nash really, really helped himself at the Desert Classic and will be the 3rd or
4th point guard chosen (depending on who all comes out).

Nash is a natural point guard who can distribute the ball
effectively and hit the long-range jumper. He uses deceptive quickness and a
superior understanding of the game to his advantage. Like all of the great
point guards, Nash has uncanny court vision and a sixth sense for the game.
He may be the best *true* point guard in the draft.

Strengths: Nash is the epitome of a gym rat, good shooter, can dribble the
ball and is an excellent passer. Smart and very competitive, knows his
limitations and uses what he has. Improved every year at Santa Clara.

Don't think the comparisions to Nash are warranted, kinda a stretch really. Nash wasn't a great defender, yes, but boy could he orchestrate an offense. I don't think Wolters can run a team, even as a backup.

Steve Nash was rated as the 3rd or 4th Point Guard in the draft and a sure fire 1st rounder out of Santa Clara.

I don't think you can say the same for Nate Wolters. He'll be lucky to be drafted late in the 1st round. Most mocks have him early or mid 2nd round.

ChuckBuck wrote:Don't think the comparisions to Nash are warranted, kinda a stretch really. Nash wasn't a great defender, yes, but boy could he orchestrate an offense. I don't think Wolters can run a team, even as a backup.

Steve Nash was rated as the 3rd or 4th Point Guard in the draft and a sure fire 1st rounder out of Santa Clara.

I don't think you can say the same for Nate Wolters. He'll be lucky to be drafted late in the 1st round. Most mocks have him early or mid 2nd round.

Nash was also a much better shooter, which explains how he was able to overcome his limitation in the NBA. I'm a little but higher on Wolters than, but I still think he's backup material.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/nate-wolters-working-toward-nba-dream