In my opinion,I believe it is much more important to draft an intelligent PG a la Chris Paul or a dude like Steph Curry to start with; specifically,if one is available. There is this crazy debate about drafting Okafor or Towns, while most have seen no value on a crafty ball handler/scorer like Russell. I love Towns, but I believe we need Russell a lot more then we need Towns or Okafor. The dude can at least play two positions on the court. Given our current roster and the money we have invested on Carmelo, it would be prudent and smart to select Russell to orchestrate the offense.
Knicks1969 wrote:In my opinion,I believe it is much more important to draft an intelligent PG a la Chris Paul or a dude like Steph Curry to start with; specifically,if one is available. There is this crazy debate about drafting Okafor or Towns, while most have seen no value on a crafty ball handler/scorer like Russell. I love Towns, but I believe we need Russell a lot more then we need Towns or Okafor. The dude can at least play two positions on the court. Given our current roster and the money we have invested on Carmelo, it would be prudent and smart to select Russell to orchestrate the offense.
So Tim Duncan/Garnett or Chris Paul/Curry in their prime or as rooks...Make the talent equatable so we know what we are talking about here...I'll take Garnett and Duncan...
And in the 2010 NBA draft...John Wall went 1st and DeMarcus Cousins went 5th..Right now, I'll take Cousins..
The answer is that it depends on what's available at the time lol Personally, I think it's easier to craft a team once you have a dominant big in place. There are just so many competent PGs around to plug in than bugs. Our system would benefit from quality playmaker, but it's been proven that it's not a necessity. In Russell's case, I wouldn't be upset if we grabbed him with pick 3 or higher.
I'd like to pick in hindsight.
Since I can't, I'll take a big. Towns has more skill then he showed playing on the platoon all star team in kentucky. If not, Okafor.
Paul is playing with his best roster around him now. Tony Parker was never a star but very underrated. Things opened for him because of the talent around him and the system employed.
Starphuching kills that.
Take the best player available. Freshman its about projections.
There are so few dominant big men that it's always going to be the highest impact for a team. If you miss on the top PG there will be another one available sooner than if you miss on the top big. Teams with top bigs have won an awful lot of Titles, often without a top PG. This is not to say having a great PG is unimportant or not desirable but it's less important than the top big IMO.
I will always take a big first but if you are a blazer fan you would have to rethink it
NYKBocker wrote:I will always take a big first but if you are a blazer fan you would have to rethink it
That was just STUPID!!! Anyone watching KD knew he was a sure thing but there were a TON of questions about Oden. After missing on Michael Jordan, you would think they'd make the choice for KD just because...
Knicks don't really need a point guard. They got Galloway who has plenty of potential
No one position is over any other unless the player is dominant. Each position plays an important role. Obviously its harder to get high quality big men whether PF or C.
Russell at pick 3 works for me. Surprised the Knicks have Mudiay rated higher. Combine will be telling, I hope.
Moonangie wrote:Russell at pick 3 works for me. Surprised the Knicks have Mudiay rated higher. Combine will be telling, I hope.
Chad Ford has the Knicks ranked that way
Moonangie wrote:Russell at pick 3 works for me. Surprised the Knicks have Mudiay rated higher. Combine will be telling, I hope.
I don't know why in hell the Knicks would rate Mudiay higher then Russell. I guess they are willing to once again miss out on a tale t similar to Curry.
More teams have won titles without an elite pg than teams without an elite big man or wing scorer. But you take the BPA regardless. This draft can net us a franchise player, but it won't be the only piece to the puzzle, so you have to take the player you assess as the best regardless of position and fill in the blanks from there. Towns, okafor, Russell, and Mudiay all fit one of those pieces.
Knixkik wrote:More teams have won titles without an elite pg than teams without an elite big man or wing scorer. But you take the BPA regardless. This draft can net us a franchise player, but it won't be the only piece to the puzzle, so you have to take the player you assess as the best regardless of position and fill in the blanks from there. Towns, okafor, Russell, and Mudiay all fit one of those pieces.
I would not select Mudiay over Winslow. Some of you are sleeping on some excellent talents to pick an unknown commodity like Mudiay. 6'6" player like Winslow who can be as good on the defensive block like Butler and can shoot the ball. What can Mudiay do better then Winslow?
Knicks1969 wrote:Knixkik wrote:More teams have won titles without an elite pg than teams without an elite big man or wing scorer. But you take the BPA regardless. This draft can net us a franchise player, but it won't be the only piece to the puzzle, so you have to take the player you assess as the best regardless of position and fill in the blanks from there. Towns, okafor, Russell, and Mudiay all fit one of those pieces.
I would not select Mudiay over Winslow. Some of you are sleeping on some excellent talents to pick an unknown commodity like Mudiay. 6'6" player like Winslow who can be as good on the defensive block like Butler and can shoot the ball. What can Mudiay do better then Winslow?
He's unknown but that doesn't make him less of a prospect. He has elite talent and potential, no doubting that. I need to be convinced winslow is more than a Wilson chandler/MKG type player. No one talked about him as a top 5 pick until the tournament. I never feel great about picking players based on a tournament run. It's the ultimate gamble. If he was considered top 5 before the tournament that would be another story, but he was lumped into a 3rd tier group as season. But he has potential no doubt about it. I'm not completely opposed to him as a prospect, I just see more potential in Mudiay, who has been viewed as a top talent all year.
Here's some interesting info. from the 2011 season based on wins produced. Note that a high correlation means the success of the team was closely tied to the production at that position. The closer to zero (or lower) the correlation, the less connected the two are - basically, unproductive players at that position hurt their teams less and productive ones helped their teams less.
When we break it down into 30 pieces [teams] results are somewhat surprising:
Correlation coefficient between PF’s Wins Produced and team’s Wins Produced was 0.1563.
Teams with 50+ Wins Produced without any good PF = Nuggets.Correlation coefficient between PG’s Wins Produced and team’s Wins Produced was 0.2748.
Teams with 50+ Wins Produced without any good PG = Heat, Lakers, Magic.
Correlation coefficient between C’s Wins Produced and team’s Wins Produced was 0.4705.
Teams with 50+ Wins Produced without any good C = Heat, Boston, Thunder.
Correlation coefficient between SG’s Wins Produced and team’s Wins Produced was 0.5153.
Teams with 50+ Wins Produced without any good SG = Spurs [Manu is listed as a SF].
Correlation coefficient between SF’s Wins Produced and team’s Wins Produced was 0.6564.
https://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/...It's only one year and only wins produced - so it's not conclusive but still interesting. I'd want to know what other years and other stats indicate but this suggest you're getting the most benefit in the win column when you use assets to get Cs, SGs, or SFs.
See the ewing era.... He never got that pg he needed. I actually think this era of basketball is a pg era, Conley, curry, teague, wall, irving, rose,paul, those are the pg's currently in the playoffs. If you want to tell me you can put any old pg out there against this type of talent, then you are stupid.
The league's rules favor PGs. In today's NBA, I might favor a PG. Over the history of the NBA, centers are vastly more important because it is easier to find a competent PG than a competent big man--just because there's less people that tall.
Let's look at this last all star game:
Pau Gasol
Chris Bosh
Al Horford
Marc Gasol
Anthony Davis
DeMarcus Cousins
John Wall
Kyle Lowry
Kyrie Irving
Jeff Teague
Stephen Curry
Damian Lillard
Chris Paul
Russell Westbrook
I would take Anthony Davis over any of these other guys on the Knicks today... Push came to shove I'd probably take Gasol over the others too. We almost got Lowry and Teague for the poo poo platter last year.
Knicks1969 wrote:Knixkik wrote:More teams have won titles without an elite pg than teams without an elite big man or wing scorer. But you take the BPA regardless. This draft can net us a franchise player, but it won't be the only piece to the puzzle, so you have to take the player you assess as the best regardless of position and fill in the blanks from there. Towns, okafor, Russell, and Mudiay all fit one of those pieces.
I would not select Mudiay over Winslow. Some of you are sleeping on some excellent talents to pick an unknown commodity like Mudiay. 6'6" player like Winslow who can be as good on the defensive block like Butler and can shoot the ball. What can Mudiay do better then Winslow?
1. We don't know the Knicks order, so we can't say who is ranked higher. We don't even know the order of picks. Neither does the knicks.
2. Nobody is sleeping on anyone. No doubt Winslow could be the next "one". if Phil has a sense he has his alpha for his triangle and can get his bigs thru free agency then he COULD go that route.
Winslow I would guess could go anywhere from 3rd thru 6th.
knicks1248 wrote:See the ewing era.... He never got that pg he needed. I actually think this era of basketball is a pg era, Conley, curry, teague, wall, irving, rose,paul, those are the pg's currently in the playoffs. If you want to tell me you can put any old pg out there against this type of talent, then you are stupid.
I agree.
And just from a kind of eye test - who has helped Houston more- Harden or Dwight?
It just seems to me that a highly skilled wing player (SF, SG, PG) who is able to attack and break down the defense has more impact than a big who might command a double team.
And if we're talking about our system, the triangle, Phil won more rings with a center by committee than he did with a super dominant center.
And speaking of Shaq- would the league even let him play the way he did then? Maybe, though it seems a double standard that bigs can play rough but just putting your hand out on a wing player the wrong way is a foul.
It's amazing how people are still gun ho about thinking a center is such a priority when pg's have came into MSG crushed the knicks on a nightly basis. I mean how many pg's did tyson get caught up gaurding. Even Jarret jack had career games against the knicks.
