OT:Bayless Too Small 2 Play The 2?

[boomann21]

And for the record I would have taken Anthony Randolph over the Rooster if we were looking for someone to play multiple positions and be a point forward.

[KOA]

Your reppin' that hyperbole hard. Can't defend if his life depended on it? I haven't read that in any scouting reports or seen any vids of his defense to say something like that. All I hear is that he lacks lateral quickness. The athletically challenged line is crazy, just because he doesn't jump high doesn't make him athletically challenged relax. He's 6'10 with potential to grow another inch, which means on a nice weight training program he can become a PF or he can have length to bother most SF's and create match-up nightmare's on the opposite end of the floor. I think it was on these boards that someone said he was a solid defender before last season when he wasn't asked to handle such a load on offense.

Athleticism is based on speed, strength, and vertical leaps; Gallinari is average or below average in all of these tests which do not make him a good athlete. He does not box out, is too slow to guard SFs, and way too weak to guard PFs. That makes him a fairly poor athlete for NBA standards.

His defense sucks mostly due to his lack of athleticism, not his lack of effort. He is too slow to guard SFs and too weak to guard PFs.

Where are you getting he cant defend or rebound from ? or doesnt have a defined position ?

What are the strengths of bayless and Gordon that are not already the strengths of the current knicks guards ?

Pretty much anyone will tell you that he doesn't box out and that he is too slow to guard NBA SFs and too weak to guard NBA PFs.

Bayless and Gordon are efficient shooters and can get to the free throw line. Pretty much every successful team has at least one wing player with these capabilities. Which Knicks combo guard can you say that about?

[TKF]

And carlos boozer slipped because people thought he was an undersized power forward. You guys are not making much since when it comes to arguing my points so I'll concede and say you guys are basketball minds without peers and I'm sorry for challenging or even introducing another point of view. carry on.

booman, that is a such a defeatest mentality bro... Say what you want, but I am very confident in my knowledge of basketball, and that is why I will address every issue that just doesn't make sense to me. If you sit back and think about what we are saying, you wouldn't take this tone that you are taking.... All we are asking is why should the knicks take another undersized combo guard? why? can you tell me that he is already better or will be better than crawford and nate, and even if he is, will a combo guard be the type of player we want to build around? these are simple questions, they have nothing to do with how good bayless is, how many points he scored in SL, how many FT's he shot, how short his arms are, nothing.... just answer that question first, and if you honestly answer that question, then you will see where we are comming from..

As far as boozer, he slipped because it happens all the time, he was not heralded as a star at duke, just a real solid player, and his game happened to translate well into the pros.... he was not rated ahead of his teamate dunleavy, or drew gooden, or nene, or athletic freaks like marcus haislip(who was a bust) or yao ming, or amare, he wasn't rated ahead of any of those guys, so it is no suprise an upperclassmen, a junior at duke who pretty much wasn't a flashy, but a blue collar player, went in the second round. You are trying to compare every situation to justify your bayless argument and it doesn't work.. Bayless was projected as a top 6 talent? right? right! he slipped because of two things, and I am sure of this... His inability to play PG, and his size at SG.. let me ask you this.. If bayless was even measured at 6'4 without shoes, does he slip to 11? just answer that.. and if your answer is no, then I think we can rest this conversastion....

[sims]

boozer slipped because he was fat and unathletic in college. he went through a stunning physical change between the time he finished college and when he came in the league. you could make the case he slipped a bit, but nobody projected him to be anything special simply because he wasn't anything close to what he is now back then.

[boomann21]

And carlos boozer slipped because people thought he was an undersized power forward. You guys are not making much since when it comes to arguing my points so I'll concede and say you guys are basketball minds without peers and I'm sorry for challenging or even introducing another point of view. carry on.

booman, that is a such a defeatest mentality bro... Say what you want, but I am very confident in my knowledge of basketball, and that is why I will address every issue that just doesn't make sense to me. If you sit back and think about what we are saying, you wouldn't take this tone that you are taking.... All we are asking is why should the knicks take another undersized combo guard? why? can you tell me that he is already better or will be better than crawford and nate, and even if he is, will a combo guard be the type of player we want to build around? these are simple questions, they have nothing to do with how good bayless is, how many points he scored in SL, how many FT's he shot, how short his arms are, nothing.... just answer that question first, and if you honestly answer that question, then you will see where we are comming from..

As far as boozer, he slipped because it happens all the time, he was not heralded as a star at duke, just a real solid player, and his game happened to translate well into the pros.... he was not rated ahead of his teamate dunleavy, or drew gooden, or nene, or athletic freaks like marcus haislip(who was a bust) or yao ming, or amare, he wasn't rated ahead of any of those guys, so it is no suprise an upperclassmen, a junior at duke who pretty much wasn't a flashy, but a blue collar player, went in the second round. You are trying to compare every situation to justify your bayless argument and it doesn't work.. Bayless was projected as a top 6 talent? right? right! he slipped because of two things, and I am sure of this... His inability to play PG, and his size at SG.. let me ask you this.. If bayless was even measured at 6'4 without shoes, does he slip to 11? just answer that.. and if your answer is no, then I think we can rest this conversastion....

Maybe I'm comparing every situation because their have been a lot of situations that are equal to this Bayless situation. A lot of people have dropped in drafts because of height, weight and health conditions. And I'm far from defeated but why continue a discussion that's getting any where because I don't see you guys point when I bring up players who dropped in the draft and you dudes are going to have something to counter with. And if you guys think Bayless was going to get picked in front of the likes of Love, Mayo, Beasly and Rose I say stay away from mock drafts.

But if we were set at that position why sign Anthony Roberson who is the 16th man on the team? Why even waste the money if what we really needed was pure point play? And I'm not the man who endorsed Bayless for this team. I just said he was a decent player and will be a star in Portland. If I was GM I would of taken Anthony Randolph and let the chips fall where they may. I already think we have more then enough guards and other then Marbury I would like to see them all flourish in D'Antoni system next season.

[boomann21]

boozer slipped because he was fat and unathletic in college. he went through a stunning physical change between the time he finished college and when he came in the league. you could make the case he slipped a bit, but nobody projected him to be anything special simply because he wasn't anything close to what he is now back then.

Who are you? And do you know anything about basketball. So he left when he was a junior to be a second round pick? Riighhhttttt

Carlos Boozer



Full Name:
Carlos Boozer
Position:
Forward/Center
College:
Duke
Height:
6-9
Weight:
280
High School:
Juneau-Douglas HS (Juneau, Alaska)
Birthdate:
November 20, 1981
Birthplace:
Juneau, Alaska

Statistics


NBA DRAFT 2002
Selected in the second round (35th overall) by the Cleveland Cavaliers.
TEAM WORKOUTS/FEATURES
May 18: Q&A with Phoenix Suns
May 28: Boozer visits Utah


HIGHLIGHTS
An early entry candidate for the 2002 NBA Draft.
Named Third Team All-America by The Associated Press as a junior.
Named Most Valuable Player of the 2002 ACC Tournament.
Finished three-year career as top field goal percentage shooter in Duke history (63.1%).
Junior year field goal percentage of 66.5 percent was second-best in nation and second-best in Duke history behind Christian Laettner’s freshman season (72.3%).
Helped Duke to 2001 NCAA national championship.


AT DUKE
As a junior, finished third in the ACC in rebounding (8.7 rpg), fourth in scoring (18.2 ppg) and ninth in free throw percentage (75.4%).
Named First Team All-ACC.
Led Duke in rebounding and free throw percentage and was second in scoring.
Led Duke and was second in the ACC in offensive rebounds per game (3.4).
Led Duke in scoring 12 times and in rebounding 21 times.
Scored 20 or more points 15 times and posted 14 double-doubles.
Scored a career-high 33 points and added 10 rebounds at Virginia.
Notched career-high 18 rebounds and added 20 points in win over Wake Forest.
Scored 26 points to lead Duke to ACC Tournament championship over N.C. State.
Led team in scoring (19) and rebounding (nine) in season-ending loss to NCAA finalist Indiana in the Sweet Sixteen.

As a sophomore earned Honorable Mention All-ACC honors after averaging 13.3 points (14th in ACC) and 6.5 rebounds.
Was third on team in scoring and second in rebounding.
His 60.4 percent field goal shooting was sixth nationally and led the ACC.
Led team in rebounding 13 times and in scoring six times.
Reached double figures in scoring 20 times.
Missed seven games as a result of a fracture in right foot.
Contributed 12 points and 12 rebounds in NCAA championship game win over Arizona.
Contributed 19 points on 7-for-8 shooting in Final Four victory over Maryland.

As a freshman selected to ACC All-Freshman Team after averaging 13.0 points and 6.3 rebounds.
Named ACC Rookie of the Week twice.
Led team in rebounding and field goal percentage (61.4%), with the field goal percentage the eighth-best single season percentage at Duke.
Scored season-high 28 points vs. William & Mary.
Notched three double-doubles, including 25-point, 10-rebound effort vs. Michigan.

[j4remi]

Athleticism is based on speed, strength, and vertical leaps; Gallinari is average or below average in all of these tests which do not make him a good athlete. He does not box out, is too slow to guard SFs, and way too weak to guard PFs. That makes him a fairly poor athlete for NBA standards.

His defense sucks mostly due to his lack of athleticism, not his lack of effort. He is too slow to guard SFs and too weak to guard PFs.


Pretty much anyone will tell you that he doesn't box out and that he is too slow to guard NBA SFs and too weak to guard NBA PFs.

Bayless and Gordon are efficient shooters and can get to the free throw line. Pretty much every successful team has at least one wing player with these capabilities. Which Knicks combo guard can you say that about?

You're telling me that a coach can't teach the kid to box out? Get that out of here immediately. It's not too slow, it's LATERAL QUICKNESS, that has nothing to do with his actual speed. Do you have his test numbers though? I've never seen them, but I'm calling bull if you don't produce them and asking for some proof that he's not athletic. I don't get how a guy is 6'10, can grab a board and take the ball the length of the court to land a jumper or a get in the lane isn't athletic. He's too weak to guard PF's now, but so are tons of 18 and 19 yr old prospects. Strength can be gained with a good program. To offset it either way, PF's won't be able to guard his range and SF's won't be able to contain him because of his height. He's a walking match-up problem. Crawford CAN get to the line and shoots well there. You've already been called on your talk about shooting efficiency of Bayless and Gordon (btw, when did Gordon even get pulled into this? I've been saying for pages that Gordon actually makes sense to argue). Danilo can get to the line as well, he's actually noted for attacking the basket when he needs to.

[j4remi]

Maybe I'm comparing every situation because their have been a lot of situations that are equal to this Bayless situation. A lot of people have dropped in drafts because of height, weight and health conditions. And I'm far from defeated but why continue a discussion that's getting any where because I don't see you guys point when I bring up players who dropped in the draft and you dudes are going to have something to counter with. And if you guys think Bayless was going to get picked in front of the likes of Love, Mayo, Beasly and Rose I say stay away from mock drafts.

But if we were set at that position why sign Anthony Roberson who is the 16th man on the team? Why even waste the money if what we really needed was pure point play? And I'm not the man who endorsed Bayless for this team. I just said he was a decent player and will be a star in Portland. If I was GM I would of taken Anthony Randolph and let the chips fall where they may. I already think we have more then enough guards and other then Marbury I would like to see them all flourish in D'Antoni system next season.

Just some things to note. Roberson addresses 3 point shooting not scoring efficiency and he comes at almost the league minimum. Duhon is the true point answer. Bayless was projected top 4, ABOVE Love, Westbrook, Lopez, DJ, Randolph...should I keep going? 4th. Mock drafts are created from the views of scouts, interviews, and a player's impact. So something happened in order for Bayless to slip that far. His height combined with the fact that he isn't going to be a great PG hurt his stock. That's all people are saying. If Love was an inch shorter, he'd have dropped to around 10 too. He doesn't compare to most of the players you listed because they weren't projected higher then where they went. You'll always find players who project low and come back to shock GM's, but it's a little harder for a player projected high to slip and then live up to expectations imo. Marcus Williams maybe? I think Jameer Nelson slipped (he was a green room invite) and it seems like GM's made the right choice.

[boomann21]

Maybe I'm comparing every situation because their have been a lot of situations that are equal to this Bayless situation. A lot of people have dropped in drafts because of height, weight and health conditions. And I'm far from defeated but why continue a discussion that's getting any where because I don't see you guys point when I bring up players who dropped in the draft and you dudes are going to have something to counter with. And if you guys think Bayless was going to get picked in front of the likes of Love, Mayo, Beasly and Rose I say stay away from mock drafts.

But if we were set at that position why sign Anthony Roberson who is the 16th man on the team? Why even waste the money if what we really needed was pure point play? And I'm not the man who endorsed Bayless for this team. I just said he was a decent player and will be a star in Portland. If I was GM I would of taken Anthony Randolph and let the chips fall where they may. I already think we have more then enough guards and other then Marbury I would like to see them all flourish in D'Antoni system next season.

Just some things to note. Roberson addresses 3 point shooting not scoring efficiency and he comes at almost the league minimum. Duhon is the true point answer. Bayless was projected top 4, ABOVE Love, Westbrook, Lopez, DJ, Randolph...should I keep going? 4th. Mock drafts are created from the views of scouts, interviews, and a player's impact. So something happened in order for Bayless to slip that far. His height combined with the fact that he isn't going to be a great PG hurt his stock. That's all people are saying. If Love was an inch shorter, he'd have dropped to around 10 too. He doesn't compare to most of the players you listed because they weren't projected higher then where they went. You'll always find players who project low and come back to shock GM's, but it's a little harder for a player projected high to slip and then live up to expectations imo. Marcus Williams maybe? I think Jameer Nelson slipped (he was a green room invite) and it seems like GM's made the right choice.

Rashard Lewis anyone? He too was in the green room but I already know the response and that is he was too young to get drafted as high as some projected.

[TKF]

Maybe I'm comparing every situation because their have been a lot of situations that are equal to this Bayless situation. A lot of people have dropped in drafts because of height, weight and health conditions. And I'm far from defeated but why continue a discussion that's getting any where because I don't see you guys point when I bring up players who dropped in the draft and you dudes are going to have something to counter with. And if you guys think Bayless was going to get picked in front of the likes of Love, Mayo, Beasly and Rose I say stay away from mock drafts.

But if we were set at that position why sign Anthony Roberson who is the 16th man on the team? Why even waste the money if what we really needed was pure point play? And I'm not the man who endorsed Bayless for this team. I just said he was a decent player and will be a star in Portland. If I was GM I would of taken Anthony Randolph and let the chips fall where they may. I already think we have more then enough guards and other then Marbury I would like to see them all flourish in D'Antoni system next season.

Just some things to note. Roberson addresses 3 point shooting not scoring efficiency and he comes at almost the league minimum. Duhon is the true point answer. Bayless was projected top 4, ABOVE Love, Westbrook, Lopez, DJ, Randolph...should I keep going? 4th. Mock drafts are created from the views of scouts, interviews, and a player's impact. So something happened in order for Bayless to slip that far. His height combined with the fact that he isn't going to be a great PG hurt his stock. That's all people are saying. If Love was an inch shorter, he'd have dropped to around 10 too. He doesn't compare to most of the players you listed because they weren't projected higher then where they went. You'll always find players who project low and come back to shock GM's, but it's a little harder for a player projected high to slip and then live up to expectations imo. Marcus Williams maybe? I think Jameer Nelson slipped (he was a green room invite) and it seems like GM's made the right choice.

good post j4emi...... booman I was going to address your last post, but j4 did a good job of that for me. We are not denying that guys slip, but usually not guys who were projected top 4 or 5, and if they do, there was something wrong, measurements, weak workouts... I think every GM knows that bayless can score, but what they don't know is what position he really plays, He isn't a PG, even his own GM acknowledges that, and honestly, despite what the bluest and other posters may think, he is just too small for a everday SG. So I ask, do you want to take a guy like that with a top 6 pick? A lot of GM's thought the same way.... that is why agustine, who has less talent than bayless went before him. DJ is a PG, a good one, and really wasn't a risk, despite his size..... So I think it was a combination of bayless size and lack of true position that hurt him, because no one doubted his talent.... Unless you are off the charts like AI, no one is going to spend that high of a pick on you.. Ben gordon may have been the last......

[boomann21]

And this is why I concede my argument. It has nothing to do with feeling defeated and everything to do with this turning into a pointless conversation. I have my POV and you guys have yours. I think that people slipping in the draft has more to do with too much scouting and you guys think people slipping is something that they deserved because of various reasons. I think Bayless will be better then a few people drafted before him and I have no problem admitting it a mistake if he fails but from what I saw from him in summer league then I believe he should of been in the top 10 over Augustine and Alexander, who got drafted more off his workouts then in game competetion. We'll just have to see how their respective careers unfold. But to constantly throw jabs at a guy becuase his draft positon wasn't were most experts thought it would be continues to be a flawed way of judging how good they will be in the NBA.

[TKF]

And this is why I concede my argument. It has nothing to do with feeling defeated and everything to do with this turning into a pointless conversation. I have my POV and you guys have yours. I think that people slipping in the draft has more to do with too much scouting and you guys think people slipping is something that they deserved because of various reasons. I think Bayless will be better then a few people drafted before him and I have no problem admitting it a mistake if he fails but from what I saw from him in summer league then I believe he should of been in the top 10 over Augustine and Alexander, who got drafted more off his workouts then in game competetion. We'll just have to see how their respective careers unfold. But to constantly throw jabs at a guy becuase his draft positon wasn't were most experts thought it would be continues to be a flawed way of judging how good they will be in the NBA.

Fair enough..But honestly, the fact that you said you would have taken randolph in this draft, pretty much supports our argument.. Or am I wrong about you saying that?

[boomann21]

And this is why I concede my argument. It has nothing to do with feeling defeated and everything to do with this turning into a pointless conversation. I have my POV and you guys have yours. I think that people slipping in the draft has more to do with too much scouting and you guys think people slipping is something that they deserved because of various reasons. I think Bayless will be better then a few people drafted before him and I have no problem admitting it a mistake if he fails but from what I saw from him in summer league then I believe he should of been in the top 10 over Augustine and Alexander, who got drafted more off his workouts then in game competetion. We'll just have to see how their respective careers unfold. But to constantly throw jabs at a guy becuase his draft positon wasn't were most experts thought it would be continues to be a flawed way of judging how good they will be in the NBA.

Fair enough..But honestly, the fact that you said you would have taken randolph in this draft, pretty much supports our argument.. Or am I wrong about you saying that?

Actually I don't even know what is the clear argument at this point. I know it started with the thread starter talking about Bayless being too small to play the two guard and now it has evolved into a conversation about how and why people slip in the draft. But if you are saying that I support us not drafting another combo guard and taking a player to play a position that we actually need then I will say Yes I support that argument. I beleived our guard position was pretty deep before the signings of Chris Duhon and Anthony Roberson. I would of taken Anthony Randolph because he looks as if he could be a Shawn Marion type in D'antoni's offense while I'm still not sold on this Rooster kid but am holding out hope that he is better then both Bayless and Randolph before his career is over.

[TKF]

And this is why I concede my argument. It has nothing to do with feeling defeated and everything to do with this turning into a pointless conversation. I have my POV and you guys have yours. I think that people slipping in the draft has more to do with too much scouting and you guys think people slipping is something that they deserved because of various reasons. I think Bayless will be better then a few people drafted before him and I have no problem admitting it a mistake if he fails but from what I saw from him in summer league then I believe he should of been in the top 10 over Augustine and Alexander, who got drafted more off his workouts then in game competetion. We'll just have to see how their respective careers unfold. But to constantly throw jabs at a guy becuase his draft positon wasn't were most experts thought it would be continues to be a flawed way of judging how good they will be in the NBA.

Fair enough..But honestly, the fact that you said you would have taken randolph in this draft, pretty much supports our argument.. Or am I wrong about you saying that?

Actually I don't even know what is the clear argument at this point. I know it started with the thread starter talking about Bayless being too small to play the two guard and now it has evolved into a conversation about how and why people slip in the draft. But if you are saying that I support us not drafting another combo guard and taking a player to play a position that we actually need then I will say Yes I support that argument. I beleived our guard position was pretty deep before the signings of Chris Duhon and Anthony Roberson. I would of taken Anthony Randolph because he looks as if he could be a Shawn Marion type in D'antoni's offense while I'm still not sold on this Rooster kid but am holding out hope that he is better then both Bayless and Randolph before his career is over.

Bingo.. then we agree... I pretty much felt we agreed, but the convo got way off track... the thread was started to pretty much started by the bluest who tried to prove that walsh was wrong for not taking bayless, because he was NOT too small to play SG... I think in our case, it would have been the wrong move to take another "combo guard". You stated the reasons why , and I agree.. Now as to who we should have taken, gallinari or randolph, well that is up for debate. I see you like randolph and honestly I have no argument with that choice...

[KOA]

so nate and jamal re extremely efficient? both shot over 40%, so in order for bayless to at least be efficient, he has to shoot roughly 47%, according to you. Am I correct. I mean nate shot 42% and he is extremely inefficient. So I guess inefficient is about 45%?

come on man.. bayless is not what we needed. If he were 6'6, we probably would not be having this argument, but he isn't... why is this so hard to understand. Do you really think this team needs another combo guard? Let me ask you. At his very best, where would any combo guard lead the knicks? really.. The knicks took a shot at a kid who is 6'10, with a load of skills,say what you want, but the kid already comes to the knicks with the highest IQ on the team, and possibly the best shooter...... as far as duhon, look at his assist to turnover ratio. I am not a fan of duhon, but he is an efficient player and he defends, something bayless didn't do much of in college... remember that.... And roberson. come on, he is costing us chump change... we are not spending the #6 pick in the draft on him.... why is that so hard for you guys to see?

The Knicks ranked #27th in FG% last season at 43.9%. Jamal Crawford was the teams leading scorer and took 21% of the teams shots, barely shooting 40% from the field for his career. This means that he is definitely one of the main reasons the Knicks offense sucked last year. Every good team has an efficient wingman as one of their top scoring options. I consider an efficient wingman someone who shoots around 44% from the field on a consistent basis, and can get to the free throw line at a very good clip.

Can you imagine how much better the Knicks would be if Crawford (their leading scorer) was at least an average shooter?

I'm not saying Bayless or Gordon were the best answer, but one of the Knicks biggest problems ever since Allan Houston retired was that they never had a good SG/SF (which EVERY good team has AT LEAST one of). Gordon or Bayless would have definitely been a huge upgrade at the position.

[TKF]

so nate and jamal re extremely efficient? both shot over 40%, so in order for bayless to at least be efficient, he has to shoot roughly 47%, according to you. Am I correct. I mean nate shot 42% and he is extremely inefficient. So I guess inefficient is about 45%?

come on man.. bayless is not what we needed. If he were 6'6, we probably would not be having this argument, but he isn't... why is this so hard to understand. Do you really think this team needs another combo guard? Let me ask you. At his very best, where would any combo guard lead the knicks? really.. The knicks took a shot at a kid who is 6'10, with a load of skills,say what you want, but the kid already comes to the knicks with the highest IQ on the team, and possibly the best shooter...... as far as duhon, look at his assist to turnover ratio. I am not a fan of duhon, but he is an efficient player and he defends, something bayless didn't do much of in college... remember that.... And roberson. come on, he is costing us chump change... we are not spending the #6 pick in the draft on him.... why is that so hard for you guys to see?

The Knicks ranked #27th in FG% last season at 43.9%. Jamal Crawford was the teams leading scorer and took 21% of the teams shots, barely shooting 40% from the field for his career. This means that he is definitely one of the main reasons the Knicks offense sucked last year. Every good team has an efficient wingman as one of their top scoring options. I consider an efficient wingman someone who shoots around 44% from the field on a consistent basis, and can get to the free throw line at a very good clip.

Can you imagine how much better the Knicks would be if Crawford (their leading scorer) was at least an average shooter?

I'm not saying Bayless or Gordon were the best answer, but one of the Knicks biggest problems ever since Allan Houston retired was that they never had a good SG/SF (which EVERY good team has AT LEAST one of). Gordon or Bayless would have definitely been a huge upgrade at the position.

nate and marbury both shoot a better% than crawford, why not move one of them over to take the majority of shots? would that have made us a better team? I don't think so... well pretty much the same goes with bayless and gordon, I just don't think undersized guards at that position shooting a slightly better% is going to make us a better team in the long run... that is why I think Donnie went in a completely different direction...

[chitownsports4ever]

so nate and jamal re extremely efficient? both shot over 40%, so in order for bayless to at least be efficient, he has to shoot roughly 47%, according to you. Am I correct. I mean nate shot 42% and he is extremely inefficient. So I guess inefficient is about 45%?

come on man.. bayless is not what we needed. If he were 6'6, we probably would not be having this argument, but he isn't... why is this so hard to understand. Do you really think this team needs another combo guard? Let me ask you. At his very best, where would any combo guard lead the knicks? really.. The knicks took a shot at a kid who is 6'10, with a load of skills,say what you want, but the kid already comes to the knicks with the highest IQ on the team, and possibly the best shooter...... as far as duhon, look at his assist to turnover ratio. I am not a fan of duhon, but he is an efficient player and he defends, something bayless didn't do much of in college... remember that.... And roberson. come on, he is costing us chump change... we are not spending the #6 pick in the draft on him.... why is that so hard for you guys to see?

The Knicks ranked #27th in FG% last season at 43.9%. Jamal Crawford was the teams leading scorer and took 21% of the teams shots, barely shooting 40% from the field for his career. This means that he is definitely one of the main reasons the Knicks offense sucked last year. Every good team has an efficient wingman as one of their top scoring options. I consider an efficient wingman someone who shoots around 44% from the field on a consistent basis, and can get to the free throw line at a very good clip.

Can you imagine how much better the Knicks would be if Crawford (their leading scorer) was at least an average shooter?

I'm not saying Bayless or Gordon were the best answer, but one of the Knicks biggest problems ever since Allan Houston retired was that they never had a good SG/SF (which EVERY good team has AT LEAST one of). Gordon or Bayless would have definitely been a huge upgrade at the position.

And the Cavaliers finished below the knicks in team fg% despite having the most efficient wing player in the league in Lebron james

/end discussion

[TKF]

so nate and jamal re extremely efficient? both shot over 40%, so in order for bayless to at least be efficient, he has to shoot roughly 47%, according to you. Am I correct. I mean nate shot 42% and he is extremely inefficient. So I guess inefficient is about 45%?

come on man.. bayless is not what we needed. If he were 6'6, we probably would not be having this argument, but he isn't... why is this so hard to understand. Do you really think this team needs another combo guard? Let me ask you. At his very best, where would any combo guard lead the knicks? really.. The knicks took a shot at a kid who is 6'10, with a load of skills,say what you want, but the kid already comes to the knicks with the highest IQ on the team, and possibly the best shooter...... as far as duhon, look at his assist to turnover ratio. I am not a fan of duhon, but he is an efficient player and he defends, something bayless didn't do much of in college... remember that.... And roberson. come on, he is costing us chump change... we are not spending the #6 pick in the draft on him.... why is that so hard for you guys to see?

The Knicks ranked #27th in FG% last season at 43.9%. Jamal Crawford was the teams leading scorer and took 21% of the teams shots, barely shooting 40% from the field for his career. This means that he is definitely one of the main reasons the Knicks offense sucked last year. Every good team has an efficient wingman as one of their top scoring options. I consider an efficient wingman someone who shoots around 44% from the field on a consistent basis, and can get to the free throw line at a very good clip.

Can you imagine how much better the Knicks would be if Crawford (their leading scorer) was at least an average shooter?

I'm not saying Bayless or Gordon were the best answer, but one of the Knicks biggest problems ever since Allan Houston retired was that they never had a good SG/SF (which EVERY good team has AT LEAST one of). Gordon or Bayless would have definitely been a huge upgrade at the position.

And the Cavaliers finished below the knicks in team fg% despite having the most efficient wing player in the league in Lebron james

/end discussion

Game, set, match..... LOL

[KOA]

And the Cavaliers finished below the knicks in team fg% despite having the most efficient wing player in the league in Lebron james

/end discussion

That just means the rest of their team sucks. Half their team barely shoots 40% or under.

[KOA]

nate and marbury both shoot a better% than crawford, why not move one of them over to take the majority of shots? would that have made us a better team? I don't think so... well pretty much the same goes with bayless and gordon, I just don't think undersized guards at that position shooting a slightly better% is going to make us a better team in the long run... that is why I think Donnie went in a completely different direction...

How many games did Marbury play for the Knicks last season? Supposedly he won't see any playing time this season either, therefore I don't see why people keep referencing to him as one of our combo guards.

Nate is a little more efficient than Crawford, but that is not saying much. Last season he shot just 42% from the field and 33% from 3. Not to mention Nate averaged 2.7 FTA compared to 4.1 3pa. That is not really being efficient, especially when he shot horribly from behind the arc. However, I can't really blame him because he is limited due to his size.

2-3 inches in height really doesn't make a big difference for a wing player as long as they have athleticism The Knicks need a more efficient scorer from the wing position. That is something they haven't had in a VERY long time, and will definitely make them better in the longrun. I don't see how you could possibly argue otherwise.

I mean can you name me one team that was really good last season and didn't have an efficient scorer at the SG or SF position?