Moderators: j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36
8516knicks wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:Def won’t be there for us. Oh well
?s=21&t=zXYv95hHVRbTk1fqxSpzWA
He looks and prob is great, but then almost anyone would look all world against that guy from Little Sisters of the Poor!
WargamesX wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:WargamesX wrote:
I know they are both Australian so this might come off lazy…but I see him and I think of a smaller Joe Ingles. However, just like Joe if he isn’t hitting the 3 he isn’t really a good player. He isn’t really 6’8, at least not based on combine measurements. That tweet said he is 6’5 in socks so that is what he will look like against most comp. I think he is probably 6’6 based on seeing him standing next to Cade who is 6’6 too.
Any If the Knicks trust his 3pt shot form (because the numbers are trash) he would be a great fit on this roster. If he can’t make that 3 pt sho he won’t be in the league long, regardless of his skill.
Knicks going to draft Australian Ntilikina
That's the risk...
Funny story about Frank and the knicks. They never sent him to the G league to get development, so we can't compare their stats or games against the same level of competition. The prior regime didn't send Frank to the G league his rookie or second year like most teams would have to get minutes. As much as we are annoyed at Miles and Sims' time down there. It's another sign the FO is probably a lot more competent than prior regimes.
The best I could do is compare Frank's U19 to Dyson's U19 and its pretty clear where they are different at least at that level. Frank looks like a 3&D guard in that game who relied on shooting three's, didn't really play defense, and he drove to the mid range to take a contested shot (both times against mismatches). Dyson spent his most his game driving and doing floaters or finishing with either hand through contact. Dyson's passes for assists were good passes but he was either swinging the ball to the open man, or passing to the open man after driving and collapsing the defense. Similar to RJ, Dyson seeks contact, something Frank rarely did. I think if you slot him as a 4th option offensively, you would be good even if his 3 pt shot wasn't great, because he could scrape by getting drives.... though with the knicks the risk of a team going zone defense against them would make that harder.
I then was a Knicks masochist and compared Dyson's U19 to Tyrese Haliburton's U19 since he was the last guy a lot of people here said was a "Frank 2.0" player...... I forgot how good Haliburton looked in U19, but watching Dyson against that, I definitely don't think he is a PG. He's a Glue Guy who I think needs people around him to open up his game. His usage rate screams Glue Guy too at 17% same as Joe's highest usage rate in Utah. Most PGs are putting up at least 20% usage rate. The only one around 17% is Lonzo Ball who isn't an ideal PG on most team and doesn't drive into contact like Dyson or Joe Ingles does.
HarthorneWingo wrote:moocow007 wrote:
I've been talking about Sharpe early on and for some time now. Even though he didn't play a lick of basketball this season it's really hard for a team to pass on a guy that has Sharpes type of everything packaged into one player. Really hard. Had he played in college I don't doubt he'd be in the discussion for a top pick. He was the no.1 ranked player in his HS class and when you factor in his physical tools and athleticism and ability score on 3 levels he'd likely could be in the top 3 discussions. He's in the bottom half of the top 10 in most mocks not because of talent and upside, but because of not playing this year. If he somehow manages to still be on the board at 11 (and he won't once workouts start with NBA teams even if he might be right now) the Knicks definitely should take him.
CBS mock draft has Sharpe going at no. 4 and pushing Ivey to no. 5
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2022-nba-mock-draft-kentuckys-shaedon-sharpe-expected-to-leave-school-projects-to-go-no-4-to-thunder/amp/
islanders11040 wrote:Johnny Davis to be our 2 next to RJ? dont see him mentioned at all here.
islanders11040 wrote:Johnny Davis to be our 2 next to RJ? dont see him mentioned at all here.
moocow007 wrote:islanders11040 wrote:Johnny Davis to be our 2 next to RJ? dont see him mentioned at all here.
He projects to be a complimentary (role) player at the next level is the general feel about his upside. The Knicks already have a ton of those (older ones like Alec Burks and younger ones like Quentin Grimes). The Knicks needs (a true PG, a potential starting caliber C if Mitch leaves, a long/athletic wing with some explosiveness, defensive tools and/or upside as a shot creator/shooter AT THE NBA level) really wouldn't be met with Davis. That may be one reason why. Davis is a solid, smart player that can kinda do a little bit of everything but really doesn't have one set of skills that he does well enough that projects to be a weapon in the NBA. He's not a reliable shooter (has been referred to by several scouts as a 'reluctant shooter'), doesn't project to be able to create his own shot consistently enough at the next level, while he's fundamentally very sound defensively especially within the team concept (like Grimes), that's not going to make him stand out and above when he hits the NBA. Davis may have a nice NBA career, but it'll likely be as a bench guy that bounces from team to team cause he'll do whatever the coach wants him to do. Not exactly something to be thrilled about nor, for a team that kinda already has a lot of these types of players, a need. Mahturin, Sochan, Duren, Sharpe, etc. those are the types of guys that have a set of skills that could be impact caliber in the NBA that isn't a lock for top 4 or 5 that might be within the Knicks reach (even if they have to move up some spots). One of those guys should be available at 11 (Sochan probably the most likely at this point based on current mock positioning). Or the Knicks can use all that draft capital and try to move up some spots to land one of the other guys.
Nazrmohamed wrote:moocow007 wrote:islanders11040 wrote:Johnny Davis to be our 2 next to RJ? dont see him mentioned at all here.
He projects to be a complimentary (role) player at the next level is the general feel about his upside. The Knicks already have a ton of those (older ones like Alec Burks and younger ones like Quentin Grimes). The Knicks needs (a true PG, a potential starting caliber C if Mitch leaves, a long/athletic wing with some explosiveness, defensive tools and/or upside as a shot creator/shooter AT THE NBA level) really wouldn't be met with Davis. That may be one reason why. Davis is a solid, smart player that can kinda do a little bit of everything but really doesn't have one set of skills that he does well enough that projects to be a weapon in the NBA. He's not a reliable shooter (has been referred to by several scouts as a 'reluctant shooter'), doesn't project to be able to create his own shot consistently enough at the next level, while he's fundamentally very sound defensively especially within the team concept (like Grimes), that's not going to make him stand out and above when he hits the NBA. Davis may have a nice NBA career, but it'll likely be as a bench guy that bounces from team to team cause he'll do whatever the coach wants him to do. Not exactly something to be thrilled about nor, for a team that kinda already has a lot of these types of players, a need. Mahturin, Sochan, Duren, Sharpe, etc. those are the types of guys that have a set of skills that could be impact caliber in the NBA that isn't a lock for top 4 or 5 that might be within the Knicks reach (even if they have to move up some spots). One of those guys should be available at 11 (Sochan probably the most likely at this point based on current mock positioning). Or the Knicks can use all that draft capital and try to move up some spots to land one of the other guys.
You're not wrong but we're picking at 11 bro and it's a weak draft. There are some drafts where you just won't find that upside. Then again, EVERY YR there's 1 or 2 guys taken later who end up better than guys with advertised high cielings.
And before I start I'm not a scout. I don't hang out with these guys and every single year two days before the draft everybody is gonna be a star. 2 years later that sounds crazy when you look back at it. But from what I'm seeing all you'll find at 11 are plug and play guys with a skill or two or in some cases it's guys with a high risk reward.
For example Dyson Daniel's is everyone's gem. The dude can't shoot and weighs like 190lbs. His positives look awesome and you wanna imagine what he'll be in a yr or two but the risk is he's never a good shooter. I'm not saying this to say don't draft him but point is at 11 you're not gonna get win now skills AND high potential. You sortve gotta choose.
moocow007 wrote:Nazrmohamed wrote:moocow007 wrote:
He projects to be a complimentary (role) player at the next level is the general feel about his upside. The Knicks already have a ton of those (older ones like Alec Burks and younger ones like Quentin Grimes). The Knicks needs (a true PG, a potential starting caliber C if Mitch leaves, a long/athletic wing with some explosiveness, defensive tools and/or upside as a shot creator/shooter AT THE NBA level) really wouldn't be met with Davis. That may be one reason why. Davis is a solid, smart player that can kinda do a little bit of everything but really doesn't have one set of skills that he does well enough that projects to be a weapon in the NBA. He's not a reliable shooter (has been referred to by several scouts as a 'reluctant shooter'), doesn't project to be able to create his own shot consistently enough at the next level, while he's fundamentally very sound defensively especially within the team concept (like Grimes), that's not going to make him stand out and above when he hits the NBA. Davis may have a nice NBA career, but it'll likely be as a bench guy that bounces from team to team cause he'll do whatever the coach wants him to do. Not exactly something to be thrilled about nor, for a team that kinda already has a lot of these types of players, a need. Mahturin, Sochan, Duren, Sharpe, etc. those are the types of guys that have a set of skills that could be impact caliber in the NBA that isn't a lock for top 4 or 5 that might be within the Knicks reach (even if they have to move up some spots). One of those guys should be available at 11 (Sochan probably the most likely at this point based on current mock positioning). Or the Knicks can use all that draft capital and try to move up some spots to land one of the other guys.
You're not wrong but we're picking at 11 bro and it's a weak draft. There are some drafts where you just won't find that upside. Then again, EVERY YR there's 1 or 2 guys taken later who end up better than guys with advertised high cielings.
And before I start I'm not a scout. I don't hang out with these guys and every single year two days before the draft everybody is gonna be a star. 2 years later that sounds crazy when you look back at it. But from what I'm seeing all you'll find at 11 are plug and play guys with a skill or two or in some cases it's guys with a high risk reward.
For example Dyson Daniel's is everyone's gem. The dude can't shoot and weighs like 190lbs. His positives look awesome and you wanna imagine what he'll be in a yr or two but the risk is he's never a good shooter. I'm not saying this to say don't draft him but point is at 11 you're not gonna get win now skills AND high potential. You sortve gotta choose.
But they're not all the same is the point. The goal is to do one of two things: ID the so-so's from the studs at the spot you pick OR you move up (to improve your chances of being right vs wrong). The Knicks have a lot of supposed draft assets. They already have a ton of young guys with some skill. They don't need to hold onto all those assets. They need to be looking to use them to move up. Even if it's not into the top 4 there is still a significant benefit to moving up from where they are at.
As far as the guys in the range they are picking? They again, are not all the same. You cannot just say that they are all likely role players cause we've seen again and again guys in that range that become impact players. So the whole exercise is to look at each of these guys and try to figure out who actually can be impact players in the NBA and who are just more likely than not be role players and who are going to be Kevin Knox level duds.
You have to actually be really willing to look at each of these guys to try and predict who can and can't. You don't need to be a scout to be able to see skills and abilities that can translate vs ones that can't. For me Johnny Davis doesn't really have any specific skill or tool that says he can be an impact player in the NBA. This I came to just watching him play (not highlights or college stats). To be really successful in the NBA you have to have skills that are above the average midline NBA player for your position. Whether it's shooting, shot creation, shut down defense, passing...something. I don't see anything about Davis that I do see in players like the one's I mentioned where it tells me that he can be an impact talent.
He doesn't shoot well which right out of the gate for a projected NBA "shooting" guard is not a good start. Now if he can create his own shot real well off the dribble then that could be the other impact skill on the offensive end for a SG. But he doesn't really do that all that great either...especially when you project whether he can do that against much better one on one defenders in the NBA. His offensive instincts and feel also isn't exceptional (especially compared to someone like Mahturin who is in his range or someone like Dillon Brooks who came out of college with comps elsewhere). Now he is a really good defensive player and has great instincts in that area but he doesn't possess the physical tools that says he's going to be an exception NBA defender. What he is is what I said which is a solid all around player that should be able to contribute off the bench but that's about it. And that type of projection is not exclusive to me (scounts who's job is to do that has said similar).
Am I right all the time? Obviously not.
Nazrmohamed wrote:moocow007 wrote:Nazrmohamed wrote:
You're not wrong but we're picking at 11 bro and it's a weak draft. There are some drafts where you just won't find that upside. Then again, EVERY YR there's 1 or 2 guys taken later who end up better than guys with advertised high cielings.
And before I start I'm not a scout. I don't hang out with these guys and every single year two days before the draft everybody is gonna be a star. 2 years later that sounds crazy when you look back at it. But from what I'm seeing all you'll find at 11 are plug and play guys with a skill or two or in some cases it's guys with a high risk reward.
For example Dyson Daniel's is everyone's gem. The dude can't shoot and weighs like 190lbs. His positives look awesome and you wanna imagine what he'll be in a yr or two but the risk is he's never a good shooter. I'm not saying this to say don't draft him but point is at 11 you're not gonna get win now skills AND high potential. You sortve gotta choose.
But they're not all the same is the point. The goal is to do one of two things: ID the so-so's from the studs at the spot you pick OR you move up (to improve your chances of being right vs wrong). The Knicks have a lot of supposed draft assets. They already have a ton of young guys with some skill. They don't need to hold onto all those assets. They need to be looking to use them to move up. Even if it's not into the top 4 there is still a significant benefit to moving up from where they are at.
As far as the guys in the range they are picking? They again, are not all the same. You cannot just say that they are all likely role players cause we've seen again and again guys in that range that become impact players. So the whole exercise is to look at each of these guys and try to figure out who actually can be impact players in the NBA and who are just more likely than not be role players and who are going to be Kevin Knox level duds.
You have to actually be really willing to look at each of these guys to try and predict who can and can't. You don't need to be a scout to be able to see skills and abilities that can translate vs ones that can't. For me Johnny Davis doesn't really have any specific skill or tool that says he can be an impact player in the NBA. This I came to just watching him play (not highlights or college stats). To be really successful in the NBA you have to have skills that are above the average midline NBA player for your position. Whether it's shooting, shot creation, shut down defense, passing...something. I don't see anything about Davis that I do see in players like the one's I mentioned where it tells me that he can be an impact talent.
He doesn't shoot well which right out of the gate for a projected NBA "shooting" guard is not a good start. Now if he can create his own shot real well off the dribble then that could be the other impact skill on the offensive end for a SG. But he doesn't really do that all that great either...especially when you project whether he can do that against much better one on one defenders in the NBA. His offensive instincts and feel also isn't exceptional (especially compared to someone like Mahturin who is in his range or someone like Dillon Brooks who came out of college with comps elsewhere). Now he is a really good defensive player and has great instincts in that area but he doesn't possess the physical tools that says he's going to be an exception NBA defender. What he is is what I said which is a solid all around player that should be able to contribute off the bench but that's about it. And that type of projection is not exclusive to me (scounts who's job is to do that has said similar).
Am I right all the time? Obviously not.
Oh I agree with your assessment of him. I'm just saying, you just talked about trading up. He's rated ahead of where we pick RIGHT NOW. So you'd have to trade assets just to move up to grab this player you just trashed......well you didn't exactly trash him but painted a pretty bleak outlook.
But look, it really depends on how willing you are to fully rebuild. In a move forward strategy where you forgive this teams shortcoming and try to make things work sure, we got allot of kids. I mean, once the vets get thier minutes how much extra kids can you play and develop? However the moment you intentionally look to rebuild and shed these vets you'll see that within the youth construct we really aren't as deep as you'd think.
IQ/McBride
RJ
Reddish
Obi
Simms
I don't even know if Mitch counts considering whether he's priced or aged himself out. I'd like him to stay but is it a garauntee? Then with McBride I'll give you a hot take. I just dont think hes gonna end up an nba player. Good kid, plays defense. But I just dont see it man.
So when you look at it this way I dissagree about the idea that we have plenty and need to consolidate. Don't get me wrong if some team wants to give you a Zion for IQ and Toppin you gotta do it but outside of that we still need to keep young assets and continue to acquire young assets. But notice one thing I said. We always focus on moving up in drafts or using picks for 32yr old superstars. What about trades for other rookie contract players or 2nd contract players? It's utilized less because more times than not if a young player looks good the team wants to keep them but for instance, Cam Reddish. Still hasn't proven anything in this league and I wouldn't trade a lottery pick for him but what did we trade, a pick that would've ended up in the 20s? I have to belive Reddishs upside is still higher than a player drafted back there. At least I hope.
Last thing real quick. There's nothing wrong with a few Grimes level talents. Guys who may not have the highest cieling but a high floor as well. I just dont think the Knicks can afford more Kevin Knox and Ntilikinas. I draft you and you gotta contribute something. So more than ever I'm becoming more open to upperclassmen who when they walk through the door they are already at RJs maturity level. I'm tired building up guys from scratch.
Spree2Houston wrote:Sharpe is a darkhorse to go #1
akhan786 wrote:Spree2Houston wrote:Sharpe is a darkhorse to go #1
I’m now officially on the Sharpe being the best prospect in the draft train. I’d even trade RJ to move up for him. Sharpe is the next Zion-level talent. I wouldn’t want to be the GM to pass up on him.
Trading RJ for Sharpe might piss Zion off, but imagine he still comes and we have Sharpe x Zion as a duo.
? stuporman wrote:It's the time of the yearly whinefest from fans about the Knicks not losing more games to have a better pick yet when it's pointed out the Knicks drop in every lottery since Ewing the response is they should have lost even more then.
The loser mentality is toxic for the heart, mind and soul.
TerrenceClarke wrote:stuporman wrote:It's the time of the yearly whinefest from fans about the Knicks not losing more games to have a better pick yet when it's pointed out the Knicks drop in every lottery since Ewing the response is they should have lost even more then.
The loser mentality is toxic for the heart, mind and soul.
Its that time of the year when Knick fans whine about Knick Fans....
?
BBALLER4FR wrote:Lillard's been lobbying for a 2-Way wing with size. Maybe think about moving Obi/Cam/11th pick for the 6th pick if you believe Sharpe will be there. That would be an amazing pick plus the Kentucky connection. You know brass would do it.
Portland can put a PF and a wing next to Dame:
Lillard/Simons/Cam/Obi/Nurkic.
Still have 2 draft picks (#11 & #15) to select or trade for depth. Athletic enough to compete, young enough to pivot if Lillard wants out. If they would like some veteran presence, expand the deal to include any of (Rose/Burks/Fournier/Noel) in exchange for Bledsoe.
If the Knicks can get Brunson and keep Mitch, then
Brunson/Rose/McBride
Sharpe/Grimes
RJ/Fournier
Randle/Sims/Taj
Mitch/Noel
Package Quickley/Burkes for a late pick.
DrCoach wrote:BBALLER4FR wrote:Lillard's been lobbying for a 2-Way wing with size. Maybe think about moving Obi/Cam/11th pick for the 6th pick if you believe Sharpe will be there. That would be an amazing pick plus the Kentucky connection. You know brass would do it.
Portland can put a PF and a wing next to Dame:
Lillard/Simons/Cam/Obi/Nurkic.
Still have 2 draft picks (#11 & #15) to select or trade for depth. Athletic enough to compete, young enough to pivot if Lillard wants out. If they would like some veteran presence, expand the deal to include any of (Rose/Burks/Fournier/Noel) in exchange for Bledsoe.
If the Knicks can get Brunson and keep Mitch, then
Brunson/Rose/McBride
Sharpe/Grimes
RJ/Fournier
Randle/Sims/Taj
Mitch/Noel
Package Quickley/Burkes for a late pick.
My god, 3 lotto picks to move up 5 places
Thank god you arent the GM