moocow007 wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:moocow007 wrote:On Mudiay, Frank and the whole playing time needed for development thing...
Mudiay was 21 when the Knicks traded for him. That is 2 years younger than Frank is right now and at about the same age that you guys are implying are critical development years for young players. So...I'm not getting the argument that giving minutes to Mudiay being an example of the Knicks not trying to develop young players by giving them playing time. Maybe the Knicks view was that Frank just wasn't worth investing in and that in part is why they traded for Mudiay and attempted to give him the playing time that some are saying should have gone to Frank. Mudiay wasn't some veteran hired gun. Just want to make sure folk realize that.
This is about "not trying to develop young players". It's about "not trying to develop Frank", in particular. This is exactly the problem I'm referring to when you bring in a different coaching staff/front office personnel each year. No consistent vision in how we were going to develop him. We just bounced around from PG to PG. He kept falling through the cracks. I can't wait to see him blossom in the next 2-3 years. He's going to be a beast.
But why would the Knicks be willing to develop every other young player but not Frank? Because they don't like the French? Because they want to develop ISO players only? Did he fall through the cracks or was he just not worth developing?
That 4 head coach argument? What it tells me is that 4 different basketball coaches didn't feel Frank was worth developing or using or pushing.
My problem is what you are saying implies some sort of intentional effort to keep Frank down while simultaneously working to prop the other young players up.
Why would they do this?
Not saying it would be beneath them to do this, but it doesn't make sense when folks use this type of argument. Now if Frank actually showed flashes that he was an NBA caliber PG worth developing then sure. But he really hasn't.
Should we also do the same for Knox?
I'm having this debate with another poster in the wiretap thread. That poster said that Frank had numerous 15 point games and even some much higher ones this past season. He did not. But to surprisingly a lot of people they seem to want to believe he has.
He's like Dante Exum...remember him?
Came into that draft as another "golden goose" (slash) "unicorn" type prospect (tall athletic PG). Then folks realized that Exum (who BTW was not drafted by some half baked front office mind you but widely considered one of the "model" franchises in terms of development) just wasn't an NBA caliber PG and that he couldn't be developed into one. And Exum just got picked up off of the scrap heap as well.
Well technically the Knicks didn't develop anybody so both sides of this argument shouldt take it personal. We're still I'm yr 23 of not resigning drafted players beyond thier rookie contract. Frank just happens to be the thread title so it's who we're focused on and those who support Frank are out in force about his experience......... which really isn't all that exclusive to him. I think both sides need to understand this.
It's not like we have tons of examples of rookies who came in at one skillset and 3 yrs later they were at another. So to the critics I would say his fans are right, the Knicks never took the time to develop him. And to the critics I'd say there is a possibility he can improve elsewhere because for the last 23 yrs that's all anyone does... improve elsewhere. Even now and I'm not complaining about it, our development process is moreso about "hey we're trying to win, if you wanna play just play harder". Idk if that's true skill development or just next man up.
I can’t do this anymore. 
