RealGM

thebuzzardman wrote:

Clyde_Style wrote:

prophet_of_rage wrote:Did any of you guys follow Brandon Ingram? He was absolutely terrible his first two years. Shut down medically his third. Won MIP in his fourth and is damn near a superstar in his fifth.

He came in too skinny, no handle, no shot, not really athletic either.

It took Patrick Ewing 5 years to develop. Not everybody is Jordan, Lebron, AI or so. There are stars who are built. And 3rd pick doesn't mean superstar.

You can be a solid performer.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Patrick Ewing took five years?

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

15 years to get to my peak, yes. I'm adding new stuff every off season.
The difference is, I was good from the jump, while Clyde_Style sucks.
Other than that, excellent comp.

Clyde_Style wrote:

thebuzzardman wrote:

Clyde_Style wrote:
Patrick Ewing took five years?

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

15 years to get to my peak, yes. I'm adding new stuff every off season.
The difference is, I was good from the jump, while Clyde_Style sucks.
Other than that, excellent comp.

thebuzzardman wrote:

Clyde_Style wrote:

thebuzzardman wrote:
15 years to get to my peak, yes. I'm adding new stuff every off season.
The difference is, I was good from the jump, while Clyde_Style sucks.
Other than that, excellent comp.

Barrett will be lucky if his FT% matches the first 4 years of Ewing's FG%

thebuzzardman wrote:Besides, how can the Knicks build around Elfrid Payton with a player like RJ?

god shammgod wrote:

prophet_of_rage wrote:

god shammgod wrote:
those are raw numbers. a lot of players could do that with the number of shots/minutes he gets. most would do better. he's not helping the team, he's actively hurting it.

Ingram did the same thing. The raw numbers are there. And now he has to figure out how to increase his efficiency.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

ingram shot 47 percent from the field and 39 from 3 in year 2. it's not the same thing.

KnicksGod wrote:

god shammgod wrote:

prophet_of_rage wrote:Ingram did the same thing. The raw numbers are there. And now he has to figure out how to increase his efficiency.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

ingram shot 47 percent from the field and 39 from 3 in year 2. it's not the same thing.

Ingram only played 59 games in year 2. About 10 of those were </= 33.3% FG with the bad ones tilted to early in the season. He finished strong.

So that’s basically out of reach already, but not by tons.

god shammgod wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:

god shammgod wrote:
ingram shot 47 percent from the field and 39 from 3 in year 2. it's not the same thing.

Ingram only played 59 games in year 2. About 10 of those were </= 33.3% FG with the bad ones tilted to early in the season. He finished strong.

So that’s basically out of reach already, but not by tons.

look, we all hope he can turn it around. there's a level of impatience but there's also a level of seeing this thing before and knowing how it usually turns out. could rj make himself into a decent player one day ? sure. but we're getting closer and closer every day to knowing he's most likely not gonna be anything special. look at knox, we don't look at him anymore and think what he might become. we're just happy he's somewhat useful at all. we applaud the mediocrity because before we had nothing. rj is approaching that same territory.

prophet_of_rage wrote:

DaGawd wrote:

prophet_of_rage wrote:You're locked into numbers. Did Ewing get better from his rookie season? Did he become even better? Was his 89-90 season not a fantastic improvement over the first four?

Players develop, no matter what their level. Even superstars.

Stop looking for immediate results out of young players with little experience.



Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Players don’t all develop.. that’s fairy tale. Many players peak their rookie years then go backwards.. progression is not linear

Development is not linear. But clearly RJ has not peaked in his rookie year. You can't write him off just yet. All you can say is he not currently a good NBA player. But year 2 you can't call him a bust.

He was never considered in the Lebron, Jordan, Iverson Shaq category.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

sims wrote:a ballhandling wing with 39% eFG and 10 PER is almost unplayable in this nba. it's a mystery to me how his problems only seem to have gotten worse after an extended layoff when presumably he did nothing but work on them with professional coaches. i've said going back to his season at duke that his psychology is all screwed up for what he is and unlikely to ever change. it's really not looking good IMO and frankly i'm not sure he'd be the best guy to have around if/when we do get a bona fide star.

1999 wrote:RJ may never be a star... That’s ok. Knicks gotta get out of this cycle of trading pick after pick with no development and expecting results. The front office has to also pick a direction and stick with it. Have some stability for once with a coaching staff, then we can more accurately assess our picks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnicksGod wrote:

god shammgod wrote:

KnicksGod wrote:
Ingram only played 59 games in year 2. About 10 of those were </= 33.3% FG with the bad ones tilted to early in the season. He finished strong.

So that’s basically out of reach already, but not by tons.

look, we all hope he can turn it around. there's a level of impatience but there's also a level of seeing this thing before and knowing how it usually turns out. could rj make himself into a decent player one day ? sure. but we're getting closer and closer every day to knowing he's most likely not gonna be anything special. look at knox, we don't look at him anymore and think what he might become. we're just happy he's somewhat useful at all. we applaud the mediocrity because before we had nothing. rj is approaching that same territory.

Well look at Ariza. He was crap when we gave him up. Same with Mark Jackson. Both couldn’t play or shoot when we let them go and they both had successful careers.

You’re not wrong but the line between useful and good (or not good) are closer than they appear once your team is good and playing meaningful games.

We do have lower hopes for Knox but that doesn’t mean he won’t be a good player on a good team one day, and get near Maxed.

RJ could easily be as important as an Ariza or more. He could have a better career than Ingram still. Ingram isn’t winning.

8516knicks wrote:Name a player who can't shoot that's an all star?

8516knicks wrote:Name a player who can't shoot that's an all star?

8516knicks wrote:Name a player who can't shoot that's an all star?