Fill me in on Danilo overseas

[4PointPlay]

Go over to Europe if you want to find out. Apparently Gallinari left his game there.

Oooo ouch!

All i can say about Gallo is he's looking *very* sharp on defense. Sticks to his man, helps when needed. He looks like a natural on the defensive end.

[cgf]

We've passed up on Anthony Randolph, a guy who does EVERYTHING better than Danilo with the EXCEPTION of shooting. Rebound? Randolph. Scoring? Randolph. Passing? Randolph. Ballhandling, RANDOLPH BY FAR. Defense? RANDOLPH BY FAR!

Yet we've found some way to convince ourselves that he's better than Randolph because Randolph always look like he's about to cry. Forget the fact that he hustles and constantly dives into the crowd for a loose ball. Forget the fact that he's just as skinny as Danilo, but goes to dunk on everyone and play very aggressive. This board hates every player thats good on our team and hopes for another player just as good on another team, yet when it comes to a rookie Danilo, we have to treat him like he's some supposed great player.

Did any of you know that us, Knicks, and the Nets are the only teams that even had interest in the guy?

Is Channing Frye better than David Lee?

In their rookie year, Channing Frye looked to be a much better prospect than his fellow draftees and teammates David Lee and Nate Robinson.

Now the tables have turned. Some people are just so determined to get better and prove people wrong that they will work in the offseason to get to the next level while some will not. I don't know about Randolph's work ethic or any of the other rookies. But I know about Gallo's. And I know he just came off a back injury. I'm not going to say that he'll be better than Gordon, Randolph, Lopez, etc. But I also wouldn't say that he's worse. Wanna know why? It's called being patient. Half a season isn't a good enough window to tell you who'll be better than who. Because otherwise, Frye>Lee>Nate.

Frye was better than lee and nate, he just busted up his knee, so you can clearly judge rookies off 16 games...

[TKF]

We've passed up on Anthony Randolph, a guy who does EVERYTHING better than Danilo with the EXCEPTION of shooting. Rebound? Randolph. Scoring? Randolph. Passing? Randolph. Ballhandling, RANDOLPH BY FAR. Defense? RANDOLPH BY FAR!

Yet we've found some way to convince ourselves that he's better than Randolph because Randolph always look like he's about to cry. Forget the fact that he hustles and constantly dives into the crowd for a loose ball. Forget the fact that he's just as skinny as Danilo, but goes to dunk on everyone and play very aggressive. This board hates every player thats good on our team and hopes for another player just as good on another team, yet when it comes to a rookie Danilo, we have to treat him like he's some supposed great player.

Did any of you know that us, Knicks, and the Nets are the only teams that even had interest in the guy?

randolph also plays more.. but I don't agree that he handles the ball better than gallanari, and yes, he is a better rebounder, but they both average pretty much the same points, steals neither guy averages a steal, and if you want to nitpick everything, gallo is ahead, although by a miniscule amount in steals and assists.. the point is, he has played double the amount of games and minutes than gallo, he already has 49 turnovers compared to gallo's 13.. randolph is turning the ball over almost 2 times per game.. the guy doesn't need to handle the ball if you ask me.. Have you seen the kid play on a consistent basis? he is a good player, but doesn't seem to play much of a smart game.... No one is treating gallo like a great player. why is it that when someone defends statemts that are ridiculous ,you go to the extreme and say we are treating him as if he is great... it really is a silly argument when it boils down to it... you are going in circles.. you don't like him, fine... but your arguments are flawed.. several posters have already pointed that out to you... why is it so hard to see..?

[TheBluest]

To this day, i still wish we would have taken Gordon. But hey, Gallinari will be great right?

if walsh wants to ruin the plan for 2010, he can have the bulls agree to sign ben gordon and then trade him to the knicks, i mean afterall ... eric gordon and ben gordon are clones.

Will you stop with this comparison they aren't the same.

[TrueWarrior]

I just think its so unfair and blatantly stupid to act like this is the Gallinari we're going to have forever. Ive said it a hundred times but judging a player based off of 15 games after missing 6 months with a back injury, barely playing and barely getting the ball, is just ignorant. It boggles my mind how some posters, Duhon2Lee, can whine so much about a 20 year old rookie whose barely played.

Nobody is saying the guy is the second coming, but some of you are pretty much labeling him a bust already. That shows incredible impatience that is just sad. Gallinari has already proved he can be an elite shooter in this league. Next hopefully his ball handling and playmaking abilities start to show. But hes not going to be able to show these until he gets more minutes and a bigger role. What do you expect the guy to do when he just stands in the corner while Harrington chucks and Duhon doesnt even look at him? I dont get what you're expecting here.

We've seen what Wilson can do when given major minutes. He has his amazing games, good games, decent games, and awful games. But the point is we're letting him work out his kinks with playing time and a bigger role. So wait until Gallinari gets the same chance to pull out your Simon Cowell impressions. People were calling Hedo a bust a few years ago and then he blew up (I hope it doesnt take Gallo as long tho obviously), the same with Dunleavy (if he wasnt always hurt), and now Bargnani is putting up good numbers since his role has increased.

Gallinari has played more than 20 minutes 2 times so far. Give the kid some damn time. Pointing to all of these other rookies that are in mid season form who are playing alot as a reason to knock Gallinari is just silly.

[TKF]

I just think its so unfair and blatantly stupid to act like this is the Gallinari we're going to have forever. Ive said it a hundred times but judging a player based off of 15 games after missing 6 months with a back injury, barely playing and barely getting the ball, is just ignorant. It boggles my mind how some posters, Duhon2Lee, can whine so much about a 20 year old rookie whose barely played.

Nobody is saying the guy is the second coming, but some of you are pretty much labeling him a bust already. That shows incredible impatience that is just sad. Gallinari has already proved he can be an elite shooter in this league. Next hopefully his ball handling and playmaking abilities start to show. But hes not going to be able to show these until he gets more minutes and a bigger role. What do you expect the guy to do when he just stands in the corner while Harrington chucks and Duhon doesnt even look at him? I dont get what you're expecting here.

We've seen what Wilson can do when given major minutes. He has his amazing games, good games, decent games, and awful games. But the point is we're letting him work out his kinks with playing time and a bigger role. So wait until Gallinari gets the same chance to pull out your Simon Cowell impressions. People were calling Hedo a bust a few years ago and then he blew up (I hope it doesnt take Gallo as long tho obviously), the same with Dunleavy (if he wasnt always hurt), and now Bargnani is putting up good numbers since his role has increased.

Gallinari has played more than 20 minutes 2 times so far. Give the kid some damn time. Pointing to all of these other rookies that are in mid season form who are playing alot as a reason to knock Gallinari is just silly.

the sad thing is that he is using rookies like anthony randolph, singing his praises while his numbers pretty much mirror gallo's... go figure...

[TrueWarrior]

To this day, i still wish we would have taken Gordon. But hey, Gallinari will be great right?

if walsh wants to ruin the plan for 2010, he can have the bulls agree to sign ben gordon and then trade him to the knicks, i mean afterall ... eric gordon and ben gordon are clones.

Will you stop with this comparison they aren't the same.

They're basically identical. There isnt one thing Eric does better than Ben. Bens defense is above average, ask Bulls fans. Ben shoots a higher percentage, they both get to the line the same amount, but Ben averages 1 more assist and 1 more rebound a game. So how are they not similar? You think Eric is going to have a better season than 21 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.5 apg shooting 46% from the field and 42% from three? He might but the point is they are practically mirrors of eachother. Eric might become SLIGHTLY better, but the point is Eric does nothing that Nate cant do, besides maybe defend better. We dont need that.

[TheBluest]

Really? You wanted us to add yet another undersized combo-guard who doesn't play D and gets shot happy?

Where does this idea come from that he doesn't play defense?

And how is he a Ben Gordon clone? Eric gets to the line, very athletic, play defense, and is far from a chucker

They're both very athletic. Ben Gordon gets to the line more than Eric, and Ben is actually an above average defender. Ask Bulls fans. They're basically exact replicas of eachother.

Ben is an average defender at best. You're comparing a 5th yr player to a rookie and they both get to the FT line equally Ben 4.8, Gordon 4.5. EG averages more steals and blks if we're going by technicality in statistics. They have similar first yr statistics but they do not play the same way. Ben Gordon likes to control the ball more, he's a better ball handler and scorer at this point...Eric Gordon is better attacking the basket, defending, and passing the ball. Ben finesse, Eric is power. Yes they are the same size, have the last name Gordon, play 2 guard, have similar numbers in their rookie season but they are different in many ways.

[TrueWarrior]

Look at Ben Gordons rookie year. He averaged 15/3/2 in 24 mpg. He was 1 year older than Eric but he put up the exact same numbers as Eric is putting up in 10 less minutes a game. He won 6th man of the year if Im not mistaken. So yea explain to me how Eric is so much better?

[TrueWarrior]

Ben is an average defender at best. You're comparing a 5th yr player to a rookie and they both get to the FT line equally Ben 4.8, Gordon 4.5. EG averages more steals and blks if we're going by technicality in statistics. They have similar first yr statistics but they do not play the same way. Ben Gordon likes to control the ball more, he's a better ball handler and scorer at this point...Eric Gordon is better attacking the basket, defending, and passing the ball. Ben finesse, Eric is power. Yes they are the same size, have the last name Gordon, play 2 guard, have similar numbers in their rookie season but they are different in many ways.

Point is we dont need Eric. I dont know if thats what you're saying. Im not knocking Eric, hes a good player, but hes a Ben Gordon clone no matter what you tell me. They obviously arent EXACT as no two players are EXACT, but they are easily very very eerily similar to eachother. And the consensus on this on this board is we dont want Ben, yet many now wanted Eric in the draft. I just think its funny.

[TheBluest]

Look at Ben Gordons rookie year. He averaged 15/3/2 in 24 mpg. He was 1 year older than Eric but he put up the exact same numbers as Eric is putting up in 10 less minutes a game. He won 6th man of the year if Im not mistaken. So yea explain to me how Eric is so much better?

Did I say "better" or saying they are the "same player"?


First Ben Gordon very rarely if ever guards the opposing teams best scorer night after night meanwhile Eric does about 70-80% of the time. Ben's game and career in general(coming off the bench for the majority) has been centered around instant offense, Eric's isn't. Ben doesn't rely on point guard play and dominates the ball for stretches Eric doesn't... unless Dunleavy calls his number and tells the team to go ISO to him. They are different in many ways if you actually watch them play. Yes they have some similarities as do many players in this league playing the exact same position.

[TheBluest]

Ben is an average defender at best. You're comparing a 5th yr player to a rookie and they both get to the FT line equally Ben 4.8, Gordon 4.5. EG averages more steals and blks if we're going by technicality in statistics. They have similar first yr statistics but they do not play the same way. Ben Gordon likes to control the ball more, he's a better ball handler and scorer at this point...Eric Gordon is better attacking the basket, defending, and passing the ball. Ben finesse, Eric is power. Yes they are the same size, have the last name Gordon, play 2 guard, have similar numbers in their rookie season but they are different in many ways.

Point is we dont need Eric. I dont know if thats what you're saying. Im not knocking Eric, hes a good player, but hes a Ben Gordon clone no matter what you tell me. They obviously arent EXACT as no two players are EXACT, but they are easily very very eerily similar to eachother. And the consensus on this on this board is we dont want Ben, yet many now wanted Eric in the draft. I just think its funny.

Because historically Ben is a Chucker, can't defend primary scorers well, and his novelty is instant offense. If look at Ben's rookie yr comparing his minutes and shot attempts to Eric's, that's all you need to know. Ben 24min/gm 13FGA...Eric 33min/gm 11FGA

[nykgeneralmanager]

For the people that wanted Eric Gordon, ask yourself this, will Eric Gordon ever be better than Nate Robinson? Honestly what does Eric Gordon bring that Nate doesnt? Then ask yourself do you see Gallo being better than Wilson Chandler? Who has a better shot of being better, Gordon over Nate or Gallo over Chandler?

Danilo has a shot at being better than Wilson because he put up 12/4/1 in Euroleague. Lets be honest, outside of shooting, what does Danilo do better? Defend? No! Rebound? No! Score? No! Pass? No! Handle the ball? No!

Stop overrating the guy, PLEASE!

Gallinari is already a better shooter, ball handler, passer, and has WAY more of a "feel" for the game and basketball IQ than Chandler. Given his height, he will have no problem being just as good a rebounder as Wilson. Chandler is certainly a better defender, but that is the only area that he has an edge over Gallinari for now and the future.

[TheBluest]

Here's what I know and this has nothing to do with Gallo's game because he has obvious strengths and weaknesses. No matter who we picked at 6 if they had an underachieving rookie yr the majority of this board would do whatever necessary to defend the pick over any other player.


I try and be consistent with my critiques and praises of all players from rookies to veterans. Every rookie has major flaws and characteristics. There are some rookies though who have proven to display their positive attributes outweighing their negative ones.

[nykgeneralmanager]

Here's what I know and this has nothing to do with Gallo's game because he has obvious strengths and weaknesses. No matter who we picked at 6 if they had an underachieving rookie yr the majority of this board would do whatever necessary to defend the pick over any other player.


I try and be consistent with my critiques and praises of all players from rookies to veterans. Every rookie has major flaws and characteristics. There are some rookies though who have proven to display their positive attributes outweighing their negative ones.

Unfortunately, most people on this board only like when we have problems or reasons to complain. People complained when we drafted Nate because he is short and Lee because he was a white guy who can't shoot. Now they have developed into our best players, but that is still a problem because we should've traded them for draft picks. Now the next problem is we shouldn't re-sign them.

We have Gallinari, one of the more skilled rookies who has back issues and hasn't played much. People complained on draft night because he was a European, even though they've never seen him play before. Now because he isn't scoring 20 ppg or played 35 mpg he is a bust who is soft among other things.

People only like negative things because if we were good, there wouldn't be much to talk about. Its only fun to say this guy sucks or we should dump this guy. Its pathetic, but it sums up the board.

[j4remi]

Here's what I know and this has nothing to do with Gallo's game because he has obvious strengths and weaknesses. No matter who we picked at 6 if they had an underachieving rookie yr the majority of this board would do whatever necessary to defend the pick over any other player.


I try and be consistent with my critiques and praises of all players from rookies to veterans. Every rookie has major flaws and characteristics. There are some rookies though who have proven to display their positive attributes outweighing their negative ones.

Here's what I'm feeling...My depth chart went Westbrook, Gallo, Lopez, Gordon...and if we went with someone other than Gallo, I wouldn't have had a problem with Lopez but I'd question Gordon. Remember that we had Crawford and no one could see him being moved at the time. I never saw Gordon as much more than a great scorer who could do some other things (of course he defends the best opposing scorer on the LAC...who do they have on the perimeter that is great on D). I defend my favorite picks to the death, regardless of team. I'm consistent and I'll admit when I'm wrong though.

Gallo hasn't played enough or with the health for anyone to judge his play or pretend to know, unless they've seen him at top shape aka in europe. Bringing up players who've been on the court all season and are in better shape thanks to no injuries is really a slight on him. I defend Oden for the same thing. I realize you think some people would defend the pick no matter what, but others would scrutinize the pick no matter what as well. One guy is trying to sell us on Anthony Randolph being better than Gallo at every aspect of the game...stop. Randolph is nice, but gtfoh with that nonsense. No matter who the pick was, with the ONLY exceptions being Mayo and Rose...people would be whining and complaining about every flaw. Gallo obviously has flaws, but he also has strengths and we are not seeing him ever in a rhythm or with consistent touches. People need to just cut it out. People called him a bust before he even touched the floor, it's a joke. I'll fight for Gallo the same as Oden, Fernandez, Ibaka and a few other personal favorites. Seems like a lot of people though, are content to complain and claim that Bayless or Gordon would be a difference maker when I really don't see any available rookie having that impact with possibly Lopez being the exception.