mpharris36 wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:mpharris36 wrote:
Again you are moving the goal posts...no one is saying he is a star or even needs to be a star. And its tough to take your argument seriously when you say a name like KCP who never has even hit 15ppg before and never been tasked with any level of shot creation on a team in his career.
And your ignore that for this 1st two years of his career he started alongside Elfrid Payton...and for his entire career he has played alongside Randle and a center that can't shoot either.
So again. Is that simply just RJ or simply the knicks haven't played in a modern offense with modern spacing. Do you think its by dumb luck the Bucks don't but not shooting players next to Giannis? Again I'm not even remotely comparing the two. I'm simply talking about roster contruction. Why do they value bigs that can shoot? Why do they value complimentary players that can shoot. So Giannis has easier decisions to make when he drives. Why does dallas put shooters around Luka.
They even tried to improve the spacing this year with Kemba/Fournier but it backfired so much because it was such a disaster defensively. You will say RJ is part of that problem but you even admitted that the only EFF part of RJ's game is hitting open 3's...so is he hurting the spacing or is it the other guys?
KCP never hit 20ppg because he was never allowed by an organization to chuck as much as he wanted regardless of whether or not he met the threshold of respectability in terms of efficiency. Almost every NBA player can average 20ppg if you give him an unlimited amount of opportunities.
I'm not moving the goal posts. You said you viewed RJ as a secondary shot creator down the line, which is essentially a star.
You mention Payton. RJ sucked OFFENSIVELY with Kemba and Burks too, and both guys are good/elite 3-point shooters. So was it all on Payton? Or was it RJ too?
But I get it, if you move all your resources towards bringing in floor spacers 1-through-5 just to tailor a team around RJ, he might improve a little bit as a shot creator. And where does that leave you? Absolutely nowhere, because he still won't be good enough as a shot creator, let alone as a playmaker. Meanwhile, you've spent a tangible of resources to bring a stretch 4 and a stretch 5 (those don't exactly grow on trees) to accommodate a player who's not worth building around, when you could've spent those resources to bring in a proper shot creator.
RJ doesn't hurt the spacing if he's used strictly as a wide-open C&S guy. But any semblance of a contest and it's a brick. He was the worst shooter from the corners in the entire NBA, by the way.
Again, you're deflecting the blame to protect these young players when they're simply not as good as you want them to be. They contribute to our suckitude as much as if not more than the players around them.
You keep complaining about him being a 1st option and I keep telling you I don't want him to be a first option. And I'm not deflecting blame. He has never played with a good playmaker at all in his career (the best is a old shell of himself Derrick Rose). We shall see the brunson impact. The difference is I am saying there are weakness in his game but there are signs that he can improve which I have brought to the table and you just call them "ifs". What 21 year old player in year 3 doesn't have ifs. And before you go down the route of the super star young players. I don't think RJ has to be a super-star to be a good player for this team and worth extending. I think there is a middle ground there.
I never said you wanted him to be a first option, I don't know where you took that from.
You said you envision him as a secondary shot creator, right?
And I'm saying that is an unrealistic expectation for him.
Theoretically, every young player can improve. That's a truism that applies to all young players, not just RJ. Some of them do improve, some of them don't. But even those who do improve don't necessarily become stars, or secondary shot creators. Some see success in a lesser role. Which is I believe the most realistic path for RJ.
I never said that you presented RJ as a superstar, so you're not arguing against me here, but an exaggeration of my critique.
I think the only way for RJ to become a net positive in this league is to scale down his role to a role player, or a bench player, with his long-term ceiling being a third option who doesn't provide much in any other area of the game besides scoring (e.g. Jrue Holiday without the elite defense or the point guard play).
He has played as a role player, as a tertiary option, as a secondary and a primary for the Knicks over the last two seasons. He hasn't been efficient or impactful in any of these roles. The role he was the least damaging in - by being merely mediocre - was last year as a 3&Drive wing who was mostly effective as a C&S guy. That's by far his best role, because he hasn't proven to be merely respectable with any other shot type.
