Oscirus wrote:moocow007 wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:Sam Vecenie released a new big board...Ball #1 with the highest upside...Agree with that take
Wait...I thought shooters were.Its almost as if you didn't watch the last draft when people were severely reaching for shooters. Playmakers (especially ones that don't play defense) are good and all, but we at the point when we need shooters at our other positions.
What "point" are we at? We're one of the worst teams in the NBA and one of the least talented. We have no sure bet cornerstone players to build around. In fact if we take our best player and compare him to the best player of every other team in the NBA, we may not be able to win any of those comparisons. So why on earth would the Knicks be at a point where the biggest need is "shooters"????
Teams like the Lakers and the Clippers need shooters. The Knicks? The Knicks need much much more than that to be viable.
The Knicks struggle to create easy opportunities...even for the shooters that they do have. Where's the proof? The fact that the Knicks have to rely on Julius Randle to touch and manage the ball as much as he has, the fact that they have tried RJ Barret as a PG. That's the proof. And they do have "shooters" it's just hard to notice cause they are forced to take ugly low percentage shots late in the shot clock or with opposing defenses set...and that's if they even get the ball without Randle fumbling it away or some other guy tries to do more than he should to create shots. They don't have anyone that can consistently break down and defense and score himself or draw defenses away from and create optimal opportunities for their shooters to shoot. They don't have anyone that can be relied on when no play materializes and they are down to be able to score efficiently on their own to get them back into the play or back into the game. Elite teams are elite cause they have those types of front end guys.
You do realize that shooting is easier when the ball is gotten into the shooters hands when the defense isn't set to defend that shooter right? THAT is "playmaking" and "shotcreating". There's a reason why the Knicks went after Durant and Irving. It wasn't for their shooting ability. There's a reason why teams max out elite play makers and shot creators. You throw a shooter or two on this team and what do you think will happen? Who is going to get the ball to these shooters so that they can get optimal looks at the basket?
I'm really not sure where the notion that "all it takes is to get a whole bunch of shooters and you're set" comes from that people have gone insane about. "Shooters" is NOT the reason that the Warriors were great. Elite play making and top tier shot creators that could score at will from anywhere on the court was. Guys that can move the ball, create shots for themselves and others AND shoot when the pressure is on, when the shotclock is winding down, when what you do can make or break a game or a season. Not just shoot.
The top teams have one thing in common...they have elite play makers and shot creators. The Knicks have ZERO of those. If the goal is to build a top team they need guys that can make plays and create shots for himself and his teammates easily. It's almost like you didn't watch winning basketball (see I can insult you the same way you insulted me).
Scan the free agency list. How many shooters are there that will be free agents. Now tell me how many elite playmakers and shotcreators there will be. I can guarantee you there are a lot more available shooters. If you're dead set on shooting, the Knicks will have a LOT of capspace that they can use on shooters. Elite playmakers? Their only realistic option right now is to trade for a soon to be 35 year old Chris Paul. That is not exactly a great option or something that they should just do.