Brunson or Ball

[Fat Kat]

Brunson hasn't shown hes special at doing anything. Hes playing nearly 26 minutes a game. Lonzo is a much better distributor and got a lot more upside.

He’s elite at the rim, a better shooter than Lonzo and can actually penetrate. Lonzo isn’t even a true point guard.

If you don’t mind me asking what you consider a true PG.

He brings the ball up, can initiate offense, makes stellar reads as passer, he shoots at a much higher than respectable rate (also Brunson isn’t a better shooter than Lonzo at this point it’s fairer to call it a wash cause Lonzo shoots much more from deep and Brunson barely shoots better than him on less than half the attempts per 36), and can dominate the opposite lead ball handler defensively.

Brunson is less of a true PG than Lonzo imo. Either would be a huge coup for this team (although Lonzo would fit better cause he’s better in the C&S and a much better defender).

Good question. I think a point guard has to create an advantage for the offense and his teammates. Many times it’s beating his man into the lane, sometimes it’s being good at the pick and roll. You have leverage the defense and get them scrambling. That’s how you create open shots for your teammates. Lonzo simply doesn’t get into the paint. He’s horrible at it. He’s a great outlet passer, and can pass around the perimeter making good reads that way. That’s good, but not what I want my 20M point guard most effective at. That’s why I prefer Brunson. He’s a lot better at the pg things

[-YogiBiz-]

He’s elite at the rim, a better shooter than Lonzo and can actually penetrate. Lonzo isn’t even a true point guard.

If you don’t mind me asking what you consider a true PG.

He brings the ball up, can initiate offense, makes stellar reads as passer, he shoots at a much higher than respectable rate (also Brunson isn’t a better shooter than Lonzo at this point it’s fairer to call it a wash cause Lonzo shoots much more from deep and Brunson barely shoots better than him on less than half the attempts per 36), and can dominate the opposite lead ball handler defensively.

Brunson is less of a true PG than Lonzo imo. Either would be a huge coup for this team (although Lonzo would fit better cause he’s better in the C&S and a much better defender).

Good question. I think a point guard has to create an advantage for the offense and his teammates. Many times it’s beating his man into the lane, sometimes it’s being good at the pick and roll. You have leverage the defense and get them scrambling. That’s how you create open shots for your teammates. Lonzo simply doesn’t get into the paint. He’s horrible at it. He’s a great outlet passer, and can pass around the perimeter making good reads that way. That’s good, but not what I want my 20M point guard most effective at. That’s why I prefer Brunson. He’s a lot better at the pg things

Okay I can dig that answer. And I agree. Lonzo is a real good passer but for some reason he can’t leverage his size and handle to bully smaller guards into the paint. And at 20 mil I don’t want Lonzo either. But I don’t think the Pelicans match and just let him go.

[stuporman]

Butler...

...because Mitchell probably played himself into going before the Knicks will pick.

[thebuzzardman]

He’s elite at the rim, a better shooter than Lonzo and can actually penetrate. Lonzo isn’t even a true point guard.

If you don’t mind me asking what you consider a true PG.

He brings the ball up, can initiate offense, makes stellar reads as passer, he shoots at a much higher than respectable rate (also Brunson isn’t a better shooter than Lonzo at this point it’s fairer to call it a wash cause Lonzo shoots much more from deep and Brunson barely shoots better than him on less than half the attempts per 36), and can dominate the opposite lead ball handler defensively.

Brunson is less of a true PG than Lonzo imo. Either would be a huge coup for this team (although Lonzo would fit better cause he’s better in the C&S and a much better defender).

Good question. I think a point guard has to create an advantage for the offense and his teammates. Many times it’s beating his man into the lane, sometimes it’s being good at the pick and roll. You have leverage the defense and get them scrambling. That’s how you create open shots for your teammates. Lonzo simply doesn’t get into the paint. He’s horrible at it. He’s a great outlet passer, and can pass around the perimeter making good reads that way. That’s good, but not what I want my 20M point guard most effective at. That’s why I prefer Brunson. He’s a lot better at the pg things

I was on the Lonzo train but I'm off it. It's just not what the Knicks need. I mean, I guess if they got a ball dominant, creative SG, say Beal, and THEN added Lonzo for whatever reason, then sure.

Oddly, Lonzo could sort of fit Bullocks role, but why spend 20 million on that?

Better guys like Scroeder or Brunson or Brogdan or maybe if a guy is there in the draft.

Completely assuming Rose is coming back to play 18-20 mpg at backup PG.

[thebuzzardman]

If you want Dennis Schroeder you might as well just go for the vastly superior player in DeRozan.

I can understand why DS has some appeal. For starters he’s only 27 and seems to fit the bill of an attacking Thibs style PG because he averages 12.5 drives per game. But Demar actually goes to the rack 18 times a game (6th in the NBA) and is the much better scorer, significantly more efficient and he’s the clear cut better passer.

My preference would be to sign neither but if I had to choose I would rather sign Demar on a 2 year deal than Dennis for 4.

DeRozan on a 1 + 1 team option with a huge payday might be an interesting thing. Whereby the Knicks go over the cap in picking up his option, if that's allowed, allowing them room to add another player while sorting out 1 more year of Randle, Mitch and possibly someone else, though I guess Demar would be sitting in the salary spot.

I dunno. I'm not good at the cap machinations stuff. I think it wouldn't work to any advantage to the Knicks and obviously DeRozan wouldn't be likely to do a 1+1

[Buttah304]

If you want Dennis Schroeder you might as well just go for the vastly superior player in DeRozan.

I can understand why DS has some appeal. For starters he’s only 27 and seems to fit the bill of an attacking Thibs style PG because he averages 12.5 drives per game. But Demar actually goes to the rack 18 times a game (6th in the NBA) and is the much better scorer, significantly more efficient and he’s the clear cut better passer.

My preference would be to sign neither but if I had to choose I would rather sign Demar on a 2 year deal than Dennis for 4.

DeRozan on a 1 + 1 team option with a huge payday might be an interesting thing. Whereby the Knicks go over the cap in picking up his option, if that's allowed, allowing them room to add another player while sorting out 1 more year of Randle, Mitch and possibly someone else, though I guess Demar would be sitting in the salary spot.

I dunno. I'm not good at the cap machinations stuff. I think it wouldn't work to any advantage to the Knicks and obviously DeRozan wouldn't be likely to do a 1+1

Demar on a 1+1 makes so much sense. Because you know deep down this front office will want a crack at Beal or LaVine when their FA comes around.

In the meantime you’re able to get a Top 45 player in Demar (those ESPN rankings putting him in the 80s is an embarrassment) while you gear up for the bigger fish the following summer.

As a short term option it’s a good move. The guy is putting up 21-7.3-4.2 on 50% FG. He’s scoring 21 a game while taking 14.6 shots so I don’t believe he’ll be taking away shots from anyone (after all even Rose takes 12 FG attempts per game on this team).

The other thing to note is that Demar has been playing under Pop for 3 years now. Thibs would probably love him.

[Chanel Bomber]

DeRozan is a good player but his skill set is similar to RJ, except he doesn't shoot from 3. He's redundant and he doesn't offer enough versatility to be plug-and-play.

There's no room for him in the Knicks starting 5. We need RJ's versatility (and he's a cornerstone), and we need Bullock's 3-point shooting and off-ball movement on the wings in the line-up.

Either you're bringing DeRozan or RJ off the bench. I don't think that's smart or a priority.

[Deeeez Knicks]

If you don’t mind me asking what you consider a true PG.

He brings the ball up, can initiate offense, makes stellar reads as passer, he shoots at a much higher than respectable rate (also Brunson isn’t a better shooter than Lonzo at this point it’s fairer to call it a wash cause Lonzo shoots much more from deep and Brunson barely shoots better than him on less than half the attempts per 36), and can dominate the opposite lead ball handler defensively.

Brunson is less of a true PG than Lonzo imo. Either would be a huge coup for this team (although Lonzo would fit better cause he’s better in the C&S and a much better defender).

Good question. I think a point guard has to create an advantage for the offense and his teammates. Many times it’s beating his man into the lane, sometimes it’s being good at the pick and roll. You have leverage the defense and get them scrambling. That’s how you create open shots for your teammates. Lonzo simply doesn’t get into the paint. He’s horrible at it. He’s a great outlet passer, and can pass around the perimeter making good reads that way. That’s good, but not what I want my 20M point guard most effective at. That’s why I prefer Brunson. He’s a lot better at the pg things

I was on the Lonzo train but I'm off it. It's just not what the Knicks need. I mean, I guess if they got a ball dominant, creative SG, say Beal, and THEN added Lonzo for whatever reason, then sure.

Oddly, Lonzo could sort of fit Bullocks role, but why spend 20 million on that?

Better guys like Scroeder or Brunson or Brogdan or maybe if a guy is there in the draft.

Completely assuming Rose is coming back to play 18-20 mpg at backup PG.

The way I look at it is that either way we should be looking to add a legit #1 option or ball dominant player...most likely a G. Mitch, Randle, RJ...and #1 option...looking at it like that then I think Ball makes a lot of sense as someone that can play off the ball and defend and fits into it as a 4th/5th option.

Ball isn't going to get to the rim much or create his own shot but if we already have 3 options ahead of him on offense then maybe someone that can shoot, defend and move the ball while handling it a little bit fits in better.

Plus, I do like that he has improved every year.

Bullock makes sense too for the right price. He is pretty much strictly off the ball as a 3D player where as Ball has much better handles/passing and can run point which fills a different need.

I do get it might be a high price. Maybe depends if and how much better he can get if hes worth it.

[thebuzzardman]

This is an interesting subject, especially combined with if the Knicks should go after Powell, if they have enough assets to get Beal and still be good, or if LaVine might truly shake free (based on WWW intel)

Because, in one scenario, the Knicks could drop 45 - 50 million on Powell and Schroeder and would be a much better team for it, but like others have said, then run the risk of being the OG Hawks or Cavs for 3 or 4 years.

[G_K_F]

Some legendary terrible takes in here.

[8516knicks]

This poll looking like Eflrid Payton vs. Clyde right about now.

[Ken Bannister]

First page looking real ugly

[knicks94]

I didn't read the thread, was this a comparison between Brunson and LaMelo?

[G_K_F]

I didn't read the thread, was this a comparison between Brunson and LaMelo?

Lonzo

[3toheadmelo]

this poll was made in 2021 when lonzo was still healthy and brunson didn't really prove anything yet. brunson averaged 8 ppg in the post season that year lol, so of course a lot of people wanted lonzo

[G_K_F]

All I needed was the eye test.

Ball was never good.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2019300&p=86459289&hilit=brunson#p86459289

These are PG's I think we should look into:

Jalen Brunson - we know the connection to Thibs via his dad, but he's also never starting there with Luka in front of it. I would consider trading a future first for him.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2019300&p=86464278&hilit=brunson#p86464278

I'm all in on Jalen Brunson.

CAA and represented by Leon's son.

Get him to NY.

He really is nothing like Eisley.

He's a very efficient and heady player. I like him a lot.

Super backup pg that the Knicks salivate over cause of stats enhanced by playing on his current team, and the Knicks expecting him to be a savior, can't see the connection?

No? Lol.

Howard Eisley was a mediocre inefficient random journeyman backup PG before he came to NY. I don't think anyone had expectations of him being anything.

This kid shoots 50% from the field as a guard and already plays 25-30 mpg to begin with. He is a major piece for the Mavericks already.

I think he can be a very very good player for a long time. We need that type of efficient player who actually understands the game of basketball instead of low IQ chucking clowns. We haven't had a player with his mindset and skill in a long time.

Nobody thinks Brunson is the savior but he certainly would be a good start towards building something. No question about it for me - I've been all in on Brunson for a couple seasons now.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2161356&p=96404832&hilit=brunson#p96404832



Even I didn't think Brunson would ever reach these heights, though.

[robillionaire]

I was just flatly wrong about the caliber of player Brunson could be but I guess that’s been pretty much the story of his career, not picked in the first round, team that drafted him never started him and didn’t want to pay him, never been on an all-star team(probably about to change) but he’s just been the ultimate underdog so it’s a great story

Lonzo was playing really good and had the Bulls looking formidable until he got injured, unsure how he’d be right now if not for the injury. Maybe some team should buy low on him and hope he can come back next year and try to round back to form

[3toheadmelo]

also the bulls were 27-13 with lonzo. people forget that. the bulls haven't been good since lonzo went down. he was their main glue piece.

[robillionaire]

also the bulls were 27-13 with lonzo. people forget that. the bulls haven't been good since lonzo went down. he was their main glue piece.

Right, his injury basically ended their entire team experiment instantly

[3toheadmelo]

also the bulls were 27-13 with lonzo. people forget that. the bulls haven't been good since lonzo went down. he was their main glue piece.

Right, his injury basically ended their entire team experiment instantly

Basically had the OG effect on that team lol