2019-2020 College/Draft thread (Part 3)

[HEZI]

Y’all was killing me last year when I said Garland ain’t it and he’s proving me right...


But he’s a rookie so I’ll let you live. Lol. But ultimately I do not see the the next Lillard in him like you guys keep saying. He is more like Jeff Teague to me. He will be solid eventually but nothing to cry over. Much rather have RJ and tons of other players in the draft over him.

Jeff Teague was in his 3rd year at the age of 23 by the time he was able to put up anything remotely similar to Garland in his rookie year

Despite what you say, Garland would easily be the best guard on the Knicks, easily, and he would easily be the best guard we would have drafted in a very long time. Comparing him to his peers from the draft class, really other than Zion and Morant there is nobody who is in some category above Garland. You can have your preferences, that's fine, but you don't have a strong case for picking anybody above Garland other than just having preferences.

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

Imagine thinking somebody is a better prospect/player because they have a PER of 9 or 10 instead of 8

Yeah man, most of the guys you named are clearly better than Garland. Garland is so bad amongst his peers that he's top 10 in scoring per game, top 3 in assists per game, top 4 in three pointers made, top 20 in free throws made and attempted, top 15 in steals, etc. But you know, his PER is an 8 instead of 10 like some of those other guys so clearly trash

[HEZI]

I think my ideal offseason would be to draft Edwards and replace Randle with Wood (or to a lesser extent Bertans).

Then I would start

Frank
Edwards
RJ
Wood
Mitch

you would have great perimeter and interior defense with Frank and Mitch. Frank would be the initiator of the offense but will allow Edwards and RJ to do most of the creating. Wood provides more spacing a shooting from a big this team desperately needs.

I would love to grab someone like Saddiq Bey, Jordan Nwora, maybe even a Tre Jones as a backup PG...with our clippers picks and early 2nd and pair them with Knox, Wooten, and maybe a vet like Bullock.

I like that offseason a lot, although I see Tre Jones as the better fit as a starting PG than Frank. But that would be a really nice complementary young core.

Tre Jones
Anthony Edwards
RJ Barrett
Christian Wood

I think Frank is the better shooter (especially catch and shoot guy and he is going into his 4th year) so he would get the start. But Tre Jones would be a nice complimentary player in terms of if he outplays him and gets the start they both do similar things. Great defenders, solid pg's in terms of distributing.

But I would build my team interchangeably.

the two most important positions defensively we would have Frank/Tre Jones and Mitch/Wooten defending P&R's which would be some of the best defense in the entire league.

Then I would have Edwards and RJ doing most of what they do best with shooters around then like Wood/Bertans/Knox/Nwora or Bey/Iggy/Bullock.

We would have the semblance of a modern day NBA roster.

Tre Jones has really improved his outside shooting from freshman to sophomore so I wouldn't be able to say that Frank has an edge on him as far as shooting goes. Not only as a shooter but overall as a scorer I just see Tre Jones being better. He's quick and really likes to push pace and attack. I also like Jones a floor general overall, a lot more than Frank. That Trio of Jones/Edwards/Barrett really intrigues me. Then adding in a piece like Wood in free agency would be huge. I like it a lot

Frank can run with the bench as he's most comfortable in that role and having limited responsibility offensively. Him and Trier could play backcourt together. Randle needs to GTFOH. Knox can help with some scoring off the bench. Fill the rest with defender and finishers, like Wooten. Would like to give Lamar Peters a good look too, he could be the easy Trier replacement in case Trier goes into diva mode and wants out.

[3toheadmelo]

Jeff Teague was in his 3rd year at the age of 23 by the time he was able to put up anything remotely similar to Garland in his rookie year

Despite what you say, Garland would easily be the best guard on the Knicks, easily, and he would easily be the best guard we would have drafted in a very long time. Comparing him to his peers from the draft class, really other than Zion and Morant there is nobody who is in some category above Garland. You can have your preferences, that's fine, but you don't have a strong case for picking anybody above Garland other than just having preferences.

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

Imagine thinking somebody is a better prospect/player because they have a PER of 9 or 10 instead of 8

Yeah man, most of the guys you named are clearly better than Garland. Garland is so bad amongst his peers that he's top 10 in scoring per game, top 3 in assists per game, top 4 in three pointers made, top 20 in free throws made and attempted, top 15 in steals, etc. But you know, his PER is an 8 instead of 10 like some of those other guys so clearly trash

The fact that you even resorted to such meaningless stats to prop up a mediocre prospect has me DEAD. You the first person I have ever seen to do that. Thanks for proving my point. He is a bum.
Wake me up when he's a legit good player

Spoiler:

[HEZI]

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

Imagine thinking somebody is a better prospect/player because they have a PER of 9 or 10 instead of 8

Yeah man, most of the guys you named are clearly better than Garland. Garland is so bad amongst his peers that he's top 10 in scoring per game, top 3 in assists per game, top 4 in three pointers made, top 20 in free throws made and attempted, top 15 in steals, etc. But you know, his PER is an 8 instead of 10 like some of those other guys so clearly trash

The fact that you even resorted to such meaningless stats to prop up a mediocre prospect has me DEAD. You the first person I have ever seen to do that. Thanks for proving my point. He is a bum.
Wake me up when he's a legit good player

Spoiler:

But you over here talking about having a strong case for dudes like Porter Jr and Cam Reddish. Hunter has almost identical numbers to Garland across the board lmao

If you want to call Garland trash than you can easily throw most of those other dudes in the same bag, including RJ Barrett

Your strong case is as weak as baby stool and no amount of laughing gifs is saving you from that weak ass 8 PER argument

[HEZI]

Yo melo why don't you post everybody's stats so we can get full context

Then we can really laugh at your comment

[3toheadmelo]

Imagine thinking somebody is a better prospect/player because they have a PER of 9 or 10 instead of 8

Yeah man, most of the guys you named are clearly better than Garland. Garland is so bad amongst his peers that he's top 10 in scoring per game, top 3 in assists per game, top 4 in three pointers made, top 20 in free throws made and attempted, top 15 in steals, etc. But you know, his PER is an 8 instead of 10 like some of those other guys so clearly trash

The fact that you even resorted to such meaningless stats to prop up a mediocre prospect has me DEAD. You the first person I have ever seen to do that. Thanks for proving my point. He is a bum.
Wake me up when he's a legit good player

Spoiler:

But you over here talking about having a strong case for dudes like Porter Jr and Cam Reddish

If you want to call Garland trash than you can easily throw most of those other dudes in the same bag, including RJ Barrett

Your strong case is as weak as baby stool and no amount of laughing gifs is saving you from that weak ass 8 PER argument

"yO GaRlaNd wAs ToP 15 iN sTeAlS, hE iSnT A bAd pLaYeR"

The bigger concern was playmaking off those drives. Garland registered almost as many turnovers (69) as assists (73) off drives this year and he was the only player in the league average double-digit drives per game with a double-digit turnover percentage on those drives.

[3toheadmelo]

Im done

[spree8]

I don't know how anybody could have watched the Knicks for the last 3 years at the least and especially last season and not come to the realization that the team needs better guards. Get better guards! Stop giving big men guard responsibilities and think you will be fine. You won't! Stop it already

We don’t have to draft a pg this year... could get one thru trade or let RJ handle the rock more and run the offense thru him for a season to see how he does. Pick n roll/pop with him n Wiseman would be nice.

What starting caliber PG are we getting via trade? Sure RJ can handle the rock more but having watched RJ for the year, is a pick and roll bigman really the missing ingredient to maximize his skills? The priority needs to be floor spacing, ball handling and perimeter play in the form of guards. Really the last thing we should be looking for right now is a rim running big that will rely on those very same things in order to succeed and we don't have that. Instead of looking to open up the floor like every team in the league has and continues to do, we are looking for different ways to shrink the floor and just play under the basket, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I don’t know what pg we can get thru trade or FA, but there are plenty available.. even if we need to just get a stopgap for the year until next draft. I did mention in the other post about trading Mitch for another lotto pick this year (GSW?). There are always options... just gotta have a creative Gm.

I wouldn’t say Wiseman is strictly just a pick and roll rim-running big... he’s capable of much more. I also didn’t say that Wiseman alone is the answer to maximizing RJ’s skills.

Drafting Wiseman doesn’t mean we can’t address the other concerns on the team, i.e. shooting and ball handling. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Drafting Wiseman doesn’t paralyze the team from being able to address any other needs.

[mpharris36]

Y’all was killing me last year when I said Garland ain’t it and he’s proving me right...


But he’s a rookie so I’ll let you live. Lol. But ultimately I do not see the the next Lillard in him like you guys keep saying. He is more like Jeff Teague to me. He will be solid eventually but nothing to cry over. Much rather have RJ and tons of other players in the draft over him.

Jeff Teague was in his 3rd year at the age of 23 by the time he was able to put up anything remotely similar to Garland in his rookie year

Despite what you say, Garland would easily be the best guard on the Knicks, easily, and he would easily be the best guard we would have drafted in a very long time. Comparing him to his peers from the draft class, really other than Zion and Morant there is nobody who is in some category above Garland. You can have your preferences, that's fine, but you don't have a strong case for picking anybody above Garland other than just having preferences.

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

wait what about PER?

PER is a useless stat to me.

[3toheadmelo]

Jeff Teague was in his 3rd year at the age of 23 by the time he was able to put up anything remotely similar to Garland in his rookie year

Despite what you say, Garland would easily be the best guard on the Knicks, easily, and he would easily be the best guard we would have drafted in a very long time. Comparing him to his peers from the draft class, really other than Zion and Morant there is nobody who is in some category above Garland. You can have your preferences, that's fine, but you don't have a strong case for picking anybody above Garland other than just having preferences.

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

wait what about PER?

PER is a useless stat to me.

Cherry picking my posts for your meaningless argument. Not surprised you resorted to that. Go look at the context where I said that and come back to me. I'll let you figure it out.

[HEZI]

Jeff Teague was in his 3rd year at the age of 23 by the time he was able to put up anything remotely similar to Garland in his rookie year

Despite what you say, Garland would easily be the best guard on the Knicks, easily, and he would easily be the best guard we would have drafted in a very long time. Comparing him to his peers from the draft class, really other than Zion and Morant there is nobody who is in some category above Garland. You can have your preferences, that's fine, but you don't have a strong case for picking anybody above Garland other than just having preferences.

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

wait what about PER?

PER is a useless stat to me.

[Deeeez Knicks]

I was never crazy about Garland, but even if he ends up being a bust does that mean no team should ever draft a G again? He really doesn't have anything to do with this draft as every prospect and draft is different.

[3toheadmelo]

I was never crazy about Garland, but even if he ends up being a bust does that mean no team should ever draft a G again? He really doesn't have anything to do with this draft as every prospect and draft is different.

Huh? I brought up Garland cause people was crazy about drafting him cause we needed a point guard so bad even though there were much better prospects than him at other positions. Same thing with people wanting to draft Frank over Tatum cause we need a point guard so bad. Just take the best player available, it's really that simple.

[HEZI]

We don’t have to draft a pg this year... could get one thru trade or let RJ handle the rock more and run the offense thru him for a season to see how he does. Pick n roll/pop with him n Wiseman would be nice.

What starting caliber PG are we getting via trade? Sure RJ can handle the rock more but having watched RJ for the year, is a pick and roll bigman really the missing ingredient to maximize his skills? The priority needs to be floor spacing, ball handling and perimeter play in the form of guards. Really the last thing we should be looking for right now is a rim running big that will rely on those very same things in order to succeed and we don't have that. Instead of looking to open up the floor like every team in the league has and continues to do, we are looking for different ways to shrink the floor and just play under the basket, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I don’t know what pg we can get thru trade or FA, but there are plenty available.. even if we need to just get a stopgap for the year until next draft. I did mention in the other post about trading Mitch for another lotto pick this year (GSW?). There are always options... just gotta have a creative Gm.

I wouldn’t say Wiseman is strictly just a pick and roll rim-running big... he’s capable of much more. I also didn’t say that Wiseman alone is the answer to maximizing RJ’s skills.

Drafting Wiseman doesn’t mean we can’t address the other concerns on the team, i.e. shooting and ball handling. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Drafting Wiseman doesn’t paralyze the team from being able to address any other needs.

At the cost of what? A top pick? Is Wiseman some can't miss player that we must get at all cost? I don't see him as that at all

[mpharris36]

Garland is not even better than Payton. That's how bad he was. The dude shot 40% from the field, has a PER of just 8 (which is pretty impressive to be that terrible), averaged just 3.9 assists a game, which shows that he is a medicore playmaker. On top of that, he is in the top 3 of worst defensive point guards in the LEAGUE. If not, the worst.

I would rather have Zion, RJ, Hunter, Coby White, Rui Hachimura, Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Brandon Clarke, Kevin Porter Jr, etc over Garland. Garland sucks. So yeah, I have a pretty strong case for picking anybody above Garland. Lol

And Jeff Teague averaged like 10 minutes per game in his first two years. So your point is moot. If he was given the same opportunity like Garland then he would've putten up similar numbers to him. And Teague in his 3rd year was WAY more efficient than Garland is right now. And overall a much better player.

wait what about PER?

PER is a useless stat to me.

Cherry picking my posts for your meaningless argument. Not surprised you resorted to that. Go look at the context where I said that and come back to me. I'll let you figure it out.

cherry pick? It literally was your first statement in an argument when I was saying how efficient Christian Wood was compared to Randle and you said PER is a useless stat.

But its not useless in trashing a player?

[jvsimonetti0514]

I don't really see the point of adding a post player in 2020. Maybe that makes sense 15 years ago but this game is dominated by guards and wings. Unless Wiseman is some secret stretch 5, I don't think it's going to be much of an upgrade over what we have in Mitch. I feel like the only way we end up drafting him is if end up 4th and Edwards, Ball, and Avdija go right in front of us. As much as I like Hayes, my gut feeling is a lot of us are overrating him because of how high tankathon has him in their mocks. A lot of other mocks I've seen him in the later lottery and even tankathon dropped him to us at 6.

[HEZI]

I was never crazy about Garland, but even if he ends up being a bust does that mean no team should ever draft a G again? He really doesn't have anything to do with this draft as every prospect and draft is different.

Huh? I brought up Garland cause people was crazy about drafting him cause we needed a point guard so bad even though there were much better prospects than him at other positions. Same thing with people wanting to draft Frank over Tatum cause we need a point guard so bad. Just take the best player available, it's really that simple.

Except there aren't but keep pushing that narrative. Drafting best player available is only simple when there is a clear best player available. Tatum over Frank was an easy choice because Tatum was a better prospect, it was clear. I mean people didn't want Trae Young because they thought Frank was the answer at PG. Heck I know folks that thought Mo Bamba was better than Trae Young and thought he was BPA. Marvin Bagley was considered BPA over Trae also. You and me both didn't want Ja Morant because we thought he wasn't much better than DSJ and now we both look stupid for it.

BPA in college doesn't equal best player on the NBA level. RJ Barrett was considered BPA at 3 but really we could have taken Garland or Herro and still gotten the same level of talent.

Everybody has their own version of who BPA is and even the concensus can be wrong. Just because you feel you are taking BPA doesn't mean you really got the best NBA player.

Lets get back to talking about our roster construction, team needs, the trend of the modern NBA game, it's requirements and things of that nature and not try to be so simplistic with our comments such as saying just take BPA and call it a day.

[3toheadmelo]

wait what about PER?

Cherry picking my posts for your meaningless argument. Not surprised you resorted to that. Go look at the context where I said that and come back to me. I'll let you figure it out.

cherry pick? It literally was your first statement in an argument when I was saying how efficient Christian Wood was compared to Randle and you said PER is a useless stat.

But its not useless in trashing a player?

Ok let me clarify it since you can't figure it out. PER is useless for BIG MEN.

And I like how you and HEZI are ignoring everything else I said about Garland and is just cherry picking the PER part of my post. Carry on

[mpharris36]

Cherry picking my posts for your meaningless argument. Not surprised you resorted to that. Go look at the context where I said that and come back to me. I'll let you figure it out.

cherry pick? It literally was your first statement in an argument when I was saying how efficient Christian Wood was compared to Randle and you said PER is a useless stat.

But its not useless in trashing a player?

Ok let me clarify it since you can't figure it out. PER is useless for BIG MEN.

And I like how you and HEZI are ignoring everything else I said about Garland and is just cherry picking the PER part of my post. Carry on

I don't even like Garland that much

small guards :

[3toheadmelo]

I was never crazy about Garland, but even if he ends up being a bust does that mean no team should ever draft a G again? He really doesn't have anything to do with this draft as every prospect and draft is different.

Huh? I brought up Garland cause people was crazy about drafting him cause we needed a point guard so bad even though there were much better prospects than him at other positions. Same thing with people wanting to draft Frank over Tatum cause we need a point guard so bad. Just take the best player available, it's really that simple.

Except there aren't but keep pushing that narrative. Drafting best player available is only simple when there is a clear best player available. Tatum over Frank was an easy choice because Tatum was a better prospect, it was clear. I mean people didn't want Trae Young because they thought Frank was the answer at PG. Heck I know folks that thought Mo Bamba was better than Trae Young and thought he was BPA. Marvin Bagley was considered BPA over Trae also. You and me both didn't want Ja Morant because we thought he wasn't much better than DSJ and now we both look stupid for it.

BPA in college doesn't equal best player on the NBA level. RJ Barrett was considered BPA at 3 but really we could have taken Garland or Herro and still gotten the same level of talent.

Everybody has their own version of who BPA is and even the concensus can be wrong. Just because you feel you are taking BPA doesn't mean you really got the best NBA player.

Lets get back to talking about our roster construction, team needs, the trend of the modern NBA game, it's requirements and things of that nature and not try to be so simplistic with our comments such as saying just take BPA and call it a day.

I already named the players who were much better than Garland.
And nah, Garland aint on the same level as RJ bro. Stop pushing that weak narrative.

Go look back at 2017 draft threads, mad people here like mpharris was pushing for the Knicks to take Frank over Tatum. Cause we needed a point guard. Never understood that type of thinking.

When I say BPA I dont mean only their play in college, I am taking their potential into factor as well. And yeah I was dumb for thinking DSJ would be better than Ja but it just shows how we need to take BPA despite the position and then work from there.

I agree though we have our own version of BPA and even the concensus can be wrong for sure. Happens all the time. But my stance will stay the same, take the best player available, whoever you think that is. I would never draft for need/fit unless the team was only one position away of completing the core. Knicks aren't even close to that.