So where does this board stand on Gallo?

StarH2O · Post #41 » by **StarH2O** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:33 am

Needs more touches...

Paladin55 · Post #42 » by **Paladin55** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:35 am

Physically, Gallo is like a young colt. Very loose in the body at this point, without the natural strength he will have as a grown man. If you look at most of the top 15 picks, they are all more physically advanced than Gallinari, who has not stopped growing. Even Randolph, despite his build, seems more physically mature in terms of muscle development. It is hard to really make judgements about picking Gallo until he has 2-3 years of physical maturity and on the court experience.

I can only imagine how his game will be like when he fills out an matures, but if his back is a non-issue, we are going to have a pretty special player on our hands. He has a lot of intelligence, pride, toughness, BB instincts, and he will potentially be one of the top two or three long distance jump shooters in this league over the next decade.

I think that we are also going to be surprised when he starts going to the basket more often, which he does have the ability to do. We are already starting to see what he can do, and he is not fully recovered from his back issue, and has not regained a lot of the muscle that he put on before the summer league (it was probably the weight lifting which screwed his back).

My eventual stat line for him- which will of course depend on the team we have:

17-20 PPG 6-8 RPG 4-6 APG 1-2 SPG 1 BPG 40-45 % on 3s 90+ ft %

StutterStep · Post #43 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:38 am

TheBluest wrote:
StutterStep wrote:As young as people say Gallo is, he's had more top-level ball experience than Chandler. In the span of 3 months Chandler has improved his 3pt shooting. His mid-range game is LETHAL and he finishes well!. His defense is solid but he looks bad when he has to guard a quick PG like Harris. Chandler/Hughes pretty much neutralized VC. All Chandler has to do is improve his handle.

I think Chandler has the most star potential on this team but I think his development/potential may get lost in whatever we're trying to do. The kid is nasty he needs to have the a support that's just as nasty behind him.

I think MikeD will develop Chandler to his full offensive potential. Now it's up to Chandler to seek out another coach (on or off the team) to become a defensive beast.

TheBluest · Post #44 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:40 am

StutterStep wrote:
LJ4pointplay wrote:...no he had it right, I'm not convinced that Gordon>Nate.. but my opinion is not strong, that's why I said I wasn't convinced and didn't just come out and blatantly say Nate>Gordon, kind of thought the way I worded the statement made it obvious that I'm just skeptical of how this board rates Gordon, not that I am in total disagreement over it. I also came out and said I don't have league pass and I have limited viewing, once again kind of qualifying my statement making sure that its obvious that my opinion is not so strong, not sure how you could have read that otherwise..

Fair enough, but I would take Nate over Gordon. I think people are enamored with Gordon's rookie / prospect status. Nate is a bona fide 20+ scorer with a wicked handle and all-around skill-set. Gordon's the better long range shooter and that's about it.

The unfortunate thing for Nate is that every coach has always boxed him in -- until maybe this year. Plus, Nate always have so many veteran teammates on teams with agendas, so his minutes have fluctuated.

This summer is going to be interesting when Knicks management and fans see how many teams throw the MLE at Nate.

They both can score 20pts it doesn't matter how you get them whether one has bags of tricks and the other doesn't. What separates them is their two-way play and ability to do what they do within a team concept. Nate is the better athlete and probably is the better pure scorer at this point but not by much. It's like who would you rather have Brandon Roy or Vince Carter 5yrs younger?

StutterStep · Post #45 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:42 am

TheBluest wrote:They both can score 20pts it doesn't matter how you get them whether one has bags of tricks and the other doesn't. What separates them is their two-way play and ability to do what they do within a team concept. Nate is the better athlete and probably is the better pure scorer at this point but not by much. It's like who would you rather have Brandon Roy or Vince Carter 5yrs younger?

VC!

TheBluest · Post #46 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:43 am

StutterStep wrote:
TheBluest wrote:
StutterStep wrote:As young as people say Gallo is, he's had more top-level ball experience than Chandler. In the span of 3 months Chandler has improved his 3pt shooting. His mid-range game is LETHAL and he finishes well!. His defense is solid but he looks bad when he has to guard a quick PG like Harris. Chandler/Hughes pretty much neutralized VC. All Chandler has to do is improve his handle.

I think Chandler has the most star potential on this team but I think his development/potential may get lost in whatever we're trying to do. The kid is nasty he needs to have the a support that's just as nasty behind him.

I think MikeD will develop Chandler to his full offensive potential. Now it's up to Chandler to seek out another coach (on or off the team) to become a defensive beast.

Only if we jettison Nate and No Sharrington otherwise it won't happen anytime soon.

StutterStep · Post #47 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:45 am

TheBluest wrote:Only if we jettison Nate and No Sharrington otherwise it won't happen anytime soon.

Harrington is a goner, and we will get outbid for Nate.

TheBluest · Post #48 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:49 am

StutterStep wrote:
TheBluest wrote:They both can score 20pts it doesn't matter how you get them whether one has bags of tricks and the other doesn't. What separates them is their two-way play and ability to do what they do within a team concept. Nate is the better athlete and probably is the better pure scorer at this point but not by much. It's like who would you rather have Brandon Roy or Vince Carter 5yrs younger?

VC!

Which I would assume would be the answer in most cases but it isn't like VC clearly gives you an advantage over the other. Because Vince, Kidd, and Jefferson didn't take New Jersey too far 5yrs ago in a weak East. Flare has only so much value to a point.

StutterStep · Post #49 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:51 am

TheBluest wrote:Which I would assume would be the answer in most cases but it isn't like VC clearly gives you an advantage over the other. Because Vince, Kidd, and Jefferson didn't take New Jersey too far 5yrs ago in a weak East. Flare has only so much value to a point.

Bad Coaching and a disinterested Kidd who kept wanting to be traded.

Toronto killed VC like they're doing Bosh. Players never come out the same from that place. :lol:

I like Roy and he would be one SG that could propel this squad but I still remember VC before Alvin Williams got injured and TMac bolted, etc... the boy was HALF-MAN HALF-AMAZING!

StarH2O · Post #50 » by **StarH2O** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:52 am

KOA · Post #51 » by **KOA** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:54 am

If Gallo was about 6'6" (allowing him to be much quicker) and had a much better handle, I would love him because he has all the criteria I could ask from a SG.

However, he is 6'10 with below average lateral quickness, meaning he cannot play anything other than PF. His frame does not suggest that he can put on more weight without further hindering his athletic ability. Furthermore, he is a below average rebounder and defender. These are attributes that I think every starting PF should possess.

TheBluest · Post #52 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:55 am

StutterStep wrote:
TheBluest wrote:Only if we jettison Nate and No Sharrington otherwise it won't happen anytime soon.

Harrington is a goner, and we will get outbid for Nate.

Well let's hope anything that gives our youngsters with the most potential to tap into it and develop to full maturity.

StutterStep · Post #53 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:00 am

TheBluest wrote:
StutterStep wrote:
TheBluest wrote:Only if we jettison Nate and No Sharrington otherwise it won't happen anytime soon.

Harrington is a goner, and we will get outbid for Nate.

Well let's hope anything that gives our youngsters with the most potential to tap into it and develop to the maturity.

I still want us to keep Nate but I think Walsh is in for a rude awakening this summer. Deep down when you look at it -- I have nothing against Hughes and years ago before the injuries, I liked his game... but let's be real: what was the purpose of TT, JJames and Roberson for Hughes when TT gave you as much if not more than what you are getting out of Larry.

Think outside the box and simply cut Roberson/James and pick up Samb/Nichols (or a real SG from the DLeague).

So, he's going to have to trade Harrington/Duhon in the summer...then flip QRich/Hughes at the deadline....more roster upheaval and unlike this year no pick...

Paeds · Post #54 » by **Paeds** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:03 am

I still want us to keep Nate but I think Walsh is in for a rude awakening this summer. Deep down when you look at it -- I have nothing against Hughes and years ago before the injuries, I liked his game... but let's be real: what was the purpose of TT, JJames and Roberson for Hughes when TT gave you as much if not more than what you are getting out of Larry.

Think outside the box and simply cut Roberson/James and pick up Samb/Nichols (or a real SG from the DLeague).

So, he's going to have to trade Harrington/Duhon in the summer...then flip QRich/Hughes at the deadline....more roster upheaval and unlike this year no pick...

[/quote]

Hughes is our Only True SG, TT was our 5th tweener forward

StutterStep · Post #55 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:05 am

Paeds wrote:Hughes is our Only True SG, TT was our 5th tweener forward

Did you get to the end of the post, where I said that we could pick up a SG off the D-League?

Paeds · Post #56 » by **Paeds** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:20 am

StutterStep wrote:
Paeds wrote:Hughes is our Only True SG, TT was our 5th tweener forward

Did you get to the end of the post, where I said that we could pick up a SG off the D-League?

Walsh already said he wasnt cutting players

we made a trade to balance our roster

Got rid of dead weight

Got rid of our 5th tweener forward and opens up minutes for Ill/Gallo

A D-league SG would be nice but none would be better than Hughes

blueNorange · Post #57 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:24 am

whoa, a mike miller comparison is new and i'd be happy if he can put up the numbers miller has put up.

StutterStep · Post #58 » by **StutterStep** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:27 am

Paeds wrote:
Walsh already said he wasnt cutting players

we made a trade to balance our roster

Got rid of dead weight

Got rid of our 5th tweener forward and opens up minutes for Ill/Gallo

A D-league SG would be nice but none would be better than Hughes

:cough: steph :cough:

Balance our roster? I just gave you the other option. :cut: James who might become a medical exception. Roberson who has no guaranteed money next year :cut:

If MikeD wanted to play Gallo, all he had to do was bench Q/Jeff, and limit Timmy. Right now Larry is playing more minutes in a game than those 3 dudes did in a week.

Yes, the D-Leaguer wouldn't be better, but we wouldn't have to worry about moving his 13mil contract next year. And, I would put any amount of money on it, that DNich can shoot better on the perimeter than Larry.

Paladin55 · Post #59 » by **Paladin55** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:29 am

KOA wrote:If Gallo was about 6'6" (allowing him to be much quicker) and had a much better handle, I would love him because he has all the criteria I could ask from a SG.

However, he is 6'10 with below average lateral quickness, meaning he cannot play anything other than PF. His frame does not suggest that he can put on more weight without further hindering his athletic ability. Furthermore, he is a below average rebounder and defender. These are attributes that I think every starting PF should possess.

I would say that he can put another 20-25 lbs on without losing any speed. Added muscle will allow his speed to remain the same. He has wide shoulders and can stand to build up his lower body a bit. Also remember that he is still growing.

I actually think that his lateral movement is much better than how you describe it. For a 6'10" kid he has shown some very good defensive movement and instincts. Think about how people were calling him a soft European defender when he was first drafted. I don't hear that talk anymore. Intelligence and studying the tendencies of opponents can also minimize defensive deficiencies to a certain extent. He will end up being a slightly above average man/man defender who plays the passing lanes well and picks up blocks when he helps out on D.

MDA already has him guarding guys on the outside, and he does a decent job staying in front of them, and does not overreact to fakes that often anymore.

I don't see him as a true PF rebounder at this time, and will be surprised if he ever averages anything close to 10 RPG. As he matures, though, I can see him having a few years where he has 9RPG. He will also get more rebounds if he does end up playing PF, because he will not be out on the perimeter all the time.

stuporman · Post #60 » by **stuporman** » Mon Mar 9, 2009 5:59 am

Since D'! made his '8 threes per game' for Gallo statement it's been 3 games in which he's played about 21mpg and scored about 13ppg. He's been 14-25 in FG and 9-13 from 3pt. I'd say he's starting to step it up with the increased playing time.

Pick one..