So remind me what makes Knight > Walker?

[CarrKeefe]

ANALOGY:

Deron Williams first year in the NBA: 10.8 ppg, 4.5 assists per game, 2.4 rebounds per game, and shot 42% from the floor.

Chris Paul's first year in the NBA: 16.1 ppg, 7.8 assists per game, 5.1 rebounds per game, shot 43% from the floor.

So we obviously should have taken Chris Paul right? He had the better first year numbers. What you're failing to see is that the two players were in completely different situations. Chris Paul wasn't the obviously better player, he just had a different role right away. Deron was stuck behind Milt frickin Palacio. That's why analyzing freshman numbers when roles/situations/minutes are different is so overrated.

Then why are you trying to compare shooting percentages.

I'm comparing shooting percentages between the two right now. Today. You're telling me Knight was the better freshman in all statistical categories and I'm telling you comparing freshman statistics between two players in different situations is moronic.

[carrottop12]

I'm saying he was a far better player as a freshman than walker was, and he was, and is a far better jump shooter and it isn't close. Played anbigger role, grew a lot more as a freshman, and was the leader of a final four team.

[CarrKeefe]

Played anbigger role, grew a lot more as a freshman, and was the leader of a final four team.

And that was because he was given the greenlight to do so. Kemba wasn't and had to split time with a senior. His role wasn't the go-to scorer either. See the analogy above. First year statistics mean nothing when determining who the better player is. Different situations and different roles. I'm not sure how better I can get across my point to you. I guess in short, I strongly disagree with you. I'll take Kemba above Knight right now.

[StocktonShorts]

ANALOGY:

Deron Williams first year in the NBA: 10.8 ppg, 4.5 assists per game, 2.4 rebounds per game, and shot 42% from the floor.

Chris Paul's first year in the NBA: 16.1 ppg, 7.8 assists per game, 5.1 rebounds per game, shot 43% from the floor.

So we obviously should have taken Chris Paul right? He had the better first year numbers. What you're failing to see is that the two players were in completely different situations. Chris Paul wasn't the obviously better player, he just had a different role right away. Deron was stuck behind Milt frickin Palacio. That's why analyzing freshman numbers when roles/situations/minutes are different is so overrated.

Or maybe Chris Paul came in ready to lead his team and Deron didn't? Maybe Sloan thought Deron needed some time to learn the system from the bench, learn the position and maybe learn some humility? You have no idea what would have happened had Chris Paul been drafted by the Jazz instead. Maybe he would've been good enough to earn Sloan's trust from day 1.

I think at this point you're UNDERVALUING how impressive it is to lead a team as a first-year player, whether you're a college freshman or an NBA rookie.

[carrottop12]

Played anbigger role, grew a lot more as a freshman, and was the leader of a final four team.

And that was because he was given the greenlight to do so. Kemba wasn't and had to split time with a senior. His role wasn't the go-to scorer either. See the analogy above. First year statistics mean nothing when determining who the better player is. Different situations and different roles. I'm not sure how better I can get across my point to you. I guess in short, I strongly disagree with you. I'll take Kemba above Knight right now.

Right now Kemba is better, but that doesn't mean anything. Right now jiimmer might be better than Irving, so what.

You are also trying to dismiss talent under the cover of opportunity. If walker was good enough to take his team to the final four as a freshman he would have done it. Calhoun didn't have some plan to supress walkprice base cost of losing basketball games. Knight did take his team to the final four, and did average 17/4/4 as the best player on that team. Walker couldn't do that the same age. Those things matter.

Walker as a freshman wasn't in knights class.

[DBJAZZ2]

Carrkeefe you are right and all the experts are wrong. Don't you really think that these guys who do this for a living have a better idea than you? I would wager a bet that 25 out of the 30 gms have Knight higher on their board than Walker. And I bet 30 out of 30 would say Knight is the better shooter. Please note I am saying shooter and not scorer.

A good rule of thumb to go by is if two guys are really close in your evaluation than go with the younger guy because he still in theory will develop past what the older guy is currently at. The you gets growth rate is much higher than the older's.

Knight is BY FAR the better prospect, again I didn't say player. He has the height and length to guard his position, scouts rave about his BB IQ (not saying Kemba doesn't have a good BB IQ but it's rarely one of the strengths attributed to him) and he has a bonafide shooting stroke, and no matter what the numbers you wanna quote say, all NBA execs know it's better than Kemba's.

No way the Jazz would ever take Kemba at 3 and skip over Knight. Now they may like the value of Kemba plus another pick more than just Knight but in no way is that statement that Kemba is the better prospect.

[CarrKeefe]

And I bet 30 out of 30 would say Knight is the better shooter. Please note I am saying shooter and not scorer.

Stats right now, say otherwise.

A good rule of thumb to go by is if two guys are really close in your evaluation than go with the younger guy because he still in theory will develop past what the older guy is currently at. The you gets growth rate is much higher than the older's.

Knight is only a year and a half older than Kemba. A year and a half. In that differential, Kemba has three years of college under his belt and a national championship in that time whereas Knight has one year.

[quote[Knight is BY FAR the better prospect, again I didn't say player.[/quote[

That's purely opinion. Can he be a pure point guard? I can see him as a combo type guard like Jason Terry, but can he be a pure point guard for the Jazz system? Or does that even matter anymore with the departure of Sloan? Most scouts agree that the better sure-pick to impact your team right now is Kemba.

And he has a bonafide shooting stroke, and no matter what the numbers you wanna quote say, all NBA execs know it's better than Kemba's.

Thank you for this inside scoop.

No way the Jazz would ever take Kemba at 3 and skip over Knight.

I never said I wanted to the Jazz to take Kemba ahead of Knight at 3. Truth is, I think PG is not one our weaknesses and I'd like to see us go with Kanter or package the pick to trade down or get a impact player in return. I just said I value Kemba above Knight because of his year-to-year improvement, his national championship, and his potential. He just barely turned 21.

[carrottop12]

CarrKeefe, you are also trying to ignore the fact that Knight has prototypical NBA size, and Kemba is undersized to say the least. Kemba is going to struggle because of his size in the NBA, he simply isn't big enough. Knight on the other hand has excellent size, and an excellent body/athleticism.

Those things are extremely, extremely important when it comes to making it in the league, and don't think they don't play a massive role in why Knight is ranked as a better prospect.

[CarrKeefe]

CarrKeefe, you are also trying to ignore the fact that Knight has prototypical NBA size, and Kemba is undersized to say the least. Kemba is going to struggle because of his size in the NBA, he simply isn't big enough..

Tell that to these players:

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/chris_paul/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/rajon_rondo/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/mike_conley/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ty_lawson/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jose_barea/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/maurice_williams/
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/brandon_jennings/

[carrottop12]

Kemba is going to make it in the NBA, I am not saying he won't, but his size is going to be a hindrance just like it is in every single one of those players. All of those guys would be better if they were 3 inches taller. I am not really sure what your point is.

[CarrKeefe]

Kemba is going to make it in the NBA, I am not saying he won't, but his size is going to be a hindrance just like it is in every single one of those players. All of those guys would be better if they were 3 inches taller. I am not really sure what your point is.

I disagree. If they were taller they'd be slower. Speed is huge to all of those players I listed. Having size at PG isn't as important as it once was. The NBA is transitioning to a much faster game and the ability to run in transition, get into the lane, and dish the ball is more important than putting a body against someone. That's my point.

[Jampod]

Kemba is going to make it in the NBA, I am not saying he won't, but his size is going to be a hindrance just like it is in every single one of those players. All of those guys would be better if they were 3 inches taller. I am not really sure what your point is.

I disagree. If they were taller they'd be slower. Speed is huge to all of those players I listed. Having size at PG isn't as important as it once was. The NBA is transitioning to a much faster game and the ability to run in transition, get into the lane, and dish the ball is more important than putting a body against someone. That's my point.

That is a bit of an over-generalization, don't ya think? And no, they wouldn't be slower. If Barea were the size of Knight, he would still be the fastest son of a bitch on the court. In fact, I could say some of those guys would be faster if they were taller considering they would have a longer stride in their step.