[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Welcome Trey Burke
Author Thread
Welpee
Posts: 21653
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

10/12/2017  10:51 AM
Billups through age 24: 10.9 pts, 3.7 assists, 39 fg%, 86 ft%
Burke through age 24: 10.6 pts, 3.6 assists, 39 fg%, 81 ft%

...just saying.

AUTOADVERT
EnySpree
Posts: 44059
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397

10/12/2017  11:07 AM
Welpee wrote:Billups through age 24: 10.9 pts, 3.7 assists, 39 fg%, 86 ft%
Burke through age 24: 10.6 pts, 3.6 assists, 39 fg%, 81 ft%

...just saying.

Good example... you just never know. Burke is a confident dude. If he did blossom into something, why not here?

You know why I'm here....
BigDaddyG
Posts: 25103
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/22/2010
Member: #3049

10/12/2017  11:38 AM
EnySpree wrote:
Welpee wrote:Billups through age 24: 10.9 pts, 3.7 assists, 39 fg%, 86 ft%
Burke through age 24: 10.6 pts, 3.6 assists, 39 fg%, 81 ft%

...just saying.

Good example... you just never know. Burke is a confident dude. If he did blossom into something, why not here?


I think Chauncey career took off after he played SG in Minnesota. Maybe a move to scoring role off the bench is what Burke needs to jumpstart his career. Him and Frank off the bench might work. I'm trying to keep an open mind. If he sucks, we just waive him. If he thrives, we get another talented player and the Baker and THJ deals start to look awful because of all the cheap young talent we have at the guard position. Win-win.
Always... always remember: Less is less. More is more. More is better and twice as much is good too. Not enough is bad, and too much is never enough except when it's just about right. - The Tick
meloshouldgo
Posts: 24235
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

10/12/2017  11:41 AM
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

The only things that trickle down are wages and horse shit
SupremeCommander
Posts: 31825
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127

10/12/2017  12:33 PM
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

fishmike said: Yes. Sometimes I confuse the alerts with when your mom calls. BTW she said defensive guards are really important.
nixluva
Posts: 55453
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
10/12/2017  1:05 PM
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

fishmike
Posts: 47776
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
10/12/2017  1:34 PM
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

I think his point is Frank's measurements are what separates him from others in that class. He is easily the longest of that PG class, and not much else separates him from Monk, Smith, Mitchell, etc... so saying we drafted him based on his size I think is a pretty accurate statement. Much better than that "triangle player" stupid tag.
fishmike - Making UltimateKnicks great again
nixluva
Posts: 55453
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
10/12/2017  2:01 PM
fishmike wrote:
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

I think his point is Frank's measurements are what separates him from others in that class. He is easily the longest of that PG class, and not much else separates him from Monk, Smith, Mitchell, etc... so saying we drafted him based on his size I think is a pretty accurate statement. Much better than that "triangle player" stupid tag.

Nitty just being tall and long would be useless if he couldn't play. It's how he USES his physical gifts that's more important. His passing and court vision. His demeanor and BBIQ. His unselfish approach to the game. The well rounded nature of his skills. His passion for defense. So no I disagree that his measurements were the primary reason we drafted him. Of course it's a factor but minus all the other factors he would not be a top prospect.

SupremeCommander
Posts: 31825
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127

10/12/2017  2:36 PM
fishmike wrote:
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

I think his point is Frank's measurements are what separates him from others in that class. He is easily the longest of that PG class, and not much else separates him from Monk, Smith, Mitchell, etc... so saying we drafted him based on his size I think is a pretty accurate statement. Much better than that "triangle player" stupid tag.

I thought that was obvious? But here we go again, nix knows oh so much more than me and starts putting words into my mouth... telling me what I know and don't know and can or can't understand... but sheesh, I am such a jerkface for not blindly loving the Knicks! such a nasty person for not being infatuated with a 19 y/o!

fishmike said: Yes. Sometimes I confuse the alerts with when your mom calls. BTW she said defensive guards are really important.
nixluva
Posts: 55453
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
10/12/2017  4:13 PM
SupremeCommander wrote:
fishmike wrote:
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

I think his point is Frank's measurements are what separates him from others in that class. He is easily the longest of that PG class, and not much else separates him from Monk, Smith, Mitchell, etc... so saying we drafted him based on his size I think is a pretty accurate statement. Much better than that "triangle player" stupid tag.

I thought that was obvious? But here we go again, nix knows oh so much more than me and starts putting words into my mouth... telling me what I know and don't know and can or can't understand... but sheesh, I am such a jerkface for not blindly loving the Knicks! such a nasty person for not being infatuated with a 19 y/o!

You can take what I wrote as you like but all I did was challenge your statement that "We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements..."

Gaines doesn't choose players based Primarily on physical measurements. If you read anything on him he's a Scout who is very deep into every aspect of a player including psychological aspects. Unlike Phil he's not focused on the Triangle. In fact he believes in 3 point shooting and even challenged Phil on the mathematical logic of taking 3's vs Midrange shots.

Mills also scouted Nitty and listed what he liked.

“I went over, I talked to our scouts a lot about Frank before the draft. I went over and watched Frank play prior to the draft, met with Frank’s coaches and learned a lot about who he is as a player and who he is as a person,’’ Mills said. “So I’m very comfortable with that draft pick. I would have selected Frank at that point in the draft myself. He’s a guy that fits in everything that we’re talking about right now. He’s a smart basketball player. He focuses defensively and his approach to the game, his work ethic, fit exactly in the direction that we want to take this team.’’
http://nypost.com/2017/07/17/new-knicks-regime-wants-credit-or-blame-for-frank-ntilikina/amp/
SupremeCommander
Posts: 31825
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127

10/12/2017  4:21 PM
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
fishmike wrote:
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

I think his point is Frank's measurements are what separates him from others in that class. He is easily the longest of that PG class, and not much else separates him from Monk, Smith, Mitchell, etc... so saying we drafted him based on his size I think is a pretty accurate statement. Much better than that "triangle player" stupid tag.

I thought that was obvious? But here we go again, nix knows oh so much more than me and starts putting words into my mouth... telling me what I know and don't know and can or can't understand... but sheesh, I am such a jerkface for not blindly loving the Knicks! such a nasty person for not being infatuated with a 19 y/o!

You can take what I wrote as you like but all I did was challenge your statement that "We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements..."

Gaines doesn't choose players based Primarily on physical measurements. If you read anything on him he's a Scout who is very deep into every aspect of a player including psychological aspects. Unlike Phil he's not focused on the Triangle. In fact he believes in 3 point shooting and even challenged Phil on the mathematical logic of taking 3's vs Midrange shots.

Mills also scouted Nitty and listed what he liked.

“I went over, I talked to our scouts a lot about Frank before the draft. I went over and watched Frank play prior to the draft, met with Frank’s coaches and learned a lot about who he is as a player and who he is as a person,’’ Mills said. “So I’m very comfortable with that draft pick. I would have selected Frank at that point in the draft myself. He’s a guy that fits in everything that we’re talking about right now. He’s a smart basketball player. He focuses defensively and his approach to the game, his work ethic, fit exactly in the direction that we want to take this team.’’
http://nypost.com/2017/07/17/new-knicks-regime-wants-credit-or-blame-for-frank-ntilikina/amp/

dude, I get that you love Frank but come on -- why are you trying to ramrod a debate. Save it for a Frank thread.

fishmike said: Yes. Sometimes I confuse the alerts with when your mom calls. BTW she said defensive guards are really important.
nixluva
Posts: 55453
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
10/12/2017  4:57 PM
SupremeCommander wrote:
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
fishmike wrote:
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

Started with a bang, highly hyped at first. Fizzled out.
Bad shooter, barely 6ft and doesn't do anything well if I remember correctly.

someone said 'John Starks' before as a comp. I don't like the comp for how he plays, but I do like it in terms of how he carries himself. His attitude would've been a great fit for the 90s Knicks

He is definitely a score-first guy, but isn't necessarily scared to share the ball either. He's a willing defender. I loved him coming out of college and thought he'd be much better than he is. Why? He's tiny for the position.

So back to Starks, if Burke can become the mind-over-matter guy, I think he could make a mark in the league

What Knicks fan doesn't love John Starks? But I would caution against form fitting what we want into thinking what we can get out of him. It only leads to disappointment down the road.

Definitely. To be clear, I think he has a better chance of being the next Shane Larkin than the next John Starks. The game is different and faster than then... We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements... So you have to factor in that Burke is small if measurements are now important around here

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Knicks Scouts work if you think they drafted Ntilikina primarily based on measurements. I suggest you read up on Clarence Gaines and how deeply he scouts players beyond the physical measurements. There was a LOT more that went into drafting him than his being tall and long for a PG.

Burke is a low risk, high reward type. He's got talent but hasn't been able to put it all together so far. He's smallish and somewhat frail compared to many of today's PG's but he's not off the charts small. His main issue isn't so much physical as it is mental. This may be a chance for him to carve out a role and Jeff has had success with Scoring PG's in the past. Burke is a good PnR PG and so if Jeff puts him in that kind of role it could work out better for him. He's got better ball handling than our other PG's and has a shifty style that could be a nice change up from our other guards.

I think his point is Frank's measurements are what separates him from others in that class. He is easily the longest of that PG class, and not much else separates him from Monk, Smith, Mitchell, etc... so saying we drafted him based on his size I think is a pretty accurate statement. Much better than that "triangle player" stupid tag.

I thought that was obvious? But here we go again, nix knows oh so much more than me and starts putting words into my mouth... telling me what I know and don't know and can or can't understand... but sheesh, I am such a jerkface for not blindly loving the Knicks! such a nasty person for not being infatuated with a 19 y/o!

You can take what I wrote as you like but all I did was challenge your statement that "We drafted Frank primarily because of measurements..."

Gaines doesn't choose players based Primarily on physical measurements. If you read anything on him he's a Scout who is very deep into every aspect of a player including psychological aspects. Unlike Phil he's not focused on the Triangle. In fact he believes in 3 point shooting and even challenged Phil on the mathematical logic of taking 3's vs Midrange shots.

Mills also scouted Nitty and listed what he liked.

“I went over, I talked to our scouts a lot about Frank before the draft. I went over and watched Frank play prior to the draft, met with Frank’s coaches and learned a lot about who he is as a player and who he is as a person,’’ Mills said. “So I’m very comfortable with that draft pick. I would have selected Frank at that point in the draft myself. He’s a guy that fits in everything that we’re talking about right now. He’s a smart basketball player. He focuses defensively and his approach to the game, his work ethic, fit exactly in the direction that we want to take this team.’’
http://nypost.com/2017/07/17/new-knicks-regime-wants-credit-or-blame-for-frank-ntilikina/amp/

dude, I get that you love Frank but come on -- why are you trying to ramrod a debate. Save it for a Frank thread.


Sure oversimply what I'm saying as if I'm a Ntilikina fanboy, when in fact I was for drafting Monk. I agree that this is not the place to continue and I'll stop commenting in this thread about Nitty.
TripleThreat
Posts: 21562
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/24/2012
Member: #3997

10/12/2017  8:15 PM
stopstandthere wrote:Could someone describe about Burke?

A complete zero on defense. Can't run an NBA offense. Can't read the floor. Poor decision maker. Doesn't shoot long range at an elite level. Has made ZERO adjustments to his game since being drafted. Can create his own shot, but not against actual NBA level competition, would probably burn up the G league. Biggest thing - lacks an actual NBA physical tool set

Where he'd make his biggest impact would be in a documentary on the diminishing returns of using PEDS. Lance Thomas making a hard decision on PEDS in private is one thing, its going from journeyman to staying on an NBA roster and getting a pension. Burke is a different story, he'd move from fringe international league guy to fringe G league regular.

He also serves as a bizarre counterpoint to Jeremy Lin. Lin has/had an actual NBA legit tool set. He was just basically ignored by the scouts and marginalized. They all doubled downed on him during Linsanity, because things like Linsanity will start to cost people their jobs. Kenny Smith said it best, the only way a guy like Jeremy Lin slips through the cracks is if someone is simply incompetent. From a projection standpoint, one could see how Lin could make it in the NBA ,even before Linsanity. There's really nothing like that for Burke.

Things he can do to help himself

A) Juice up. PEDS on top of PEDS.
B) Work and work to get an elite three point shot
C) Work with veterans like Andre Miller and see if he can learn how to run an actual NBA offense.

I hate to just say, this guy is a waste of a roster spot. But he's basically a waste of a roster spot.

Could be magically break out? Yes, in theory. In that same theory , you could have sex with Lindsay Lohan and not contract herpes. Get it? Magical Break Out? Herpes? Magical Break Out? I could literally turn this into a Valtrex commercial and get millions.

You are more likely to not get herpes from Lindsay Lohan than Burke is of being of any use to the Knicks.

Since you came on this board you have been way off in regards to trade value. - Briggs 7/28/2015
TPercy
Posts: 24731
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/13/2017  7:29 PM
I love TT's analogies. So explicit yet so accurate.
The Future is Bright!
Welcome Trey Burke

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.com All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.