Knicks · Obi Toppin - A 3rd Lottery Bust in a Row (page 5)

If we're going to evaluate a player based on 3/4 of their rookie season, no question Haliburton comes out on top. Similar to Michael Carter-Williams his first year in the league. I care more about what they're going to look like in year 3 and 4. Didn't DSJ impress people as a rookie?

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?

This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.

And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.

We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton

How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ

Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game

Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?

35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing

It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?

What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?

Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening

I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?

Points scored is an accepted metric yes. Quickley has also been a good defender and facilitator

His defense is not that good and he is not a facilitator. We love him, lets not call any of this hate.
read bermans article were he cites his pros and cons via scouts. IQ been trailing every month since his great start.

Philc1 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?

This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.

And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.

We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton

How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ

Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game

Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?

35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing

It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?

What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?

Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening

I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?

While Haliburton has a better shooting percentage and is higher in assists per - they are fairly close in a number of per 36 / per 100 stats including TS% and scoring. Also, the starting vs. bench is a BS argument when Haliburton has only become a starter over the past 11-12 games and is alongside Fox who garners much of the defensive focus.

Points per 36 - IQ (22.2) / TH (15.5)

Points per 100 possessions - IQ (30.8) / TH (20.7)

Free Throw % - IQ (89.4) / TH (87.5)

TS% : IQ (54.3%) / TH (59.9%)

I love how you conveniently leave out this stat - MINUTES PER GAME:

Halliburton: 30 minutes per game avg for the entire regular season
Quickley: 19

I think you may have missed the point. Per 36 / Per 100 stats are meant to take into account minute differentials. Point being, in terms of shooting, while Haliburton is slightly more efficient, but IQ appears to be a more dynamic scorer.

It's difficult to project how Haliburton would be if on the Knicks. Best guess is that if they drafted him, they would have went elsewhere in the draft instead of IQ and with Thib's defense first focus, TH would likely be coming off the bench in a similar role that IQ currently has.

foosballnick wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?

This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.

And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.

We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton

How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ

Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game

Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?

35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing

It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?

What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?

Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening

I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?

While Haliburton has a better shooting percentage and is higher in assists per - they are fairly close in a number of per 36 / per 100 stats including TS% and scoring. Also, the starting vs. bench is a BS argument when Haliburton has only become a starter over the past 11-12 games and is alongside Fox who garners much of the defensive focus.

Points per 36 - IQ (22.2) / TH (15.5)

Points per 100 possessions - IQ (30.8) / TH (20.7)

Free Throw % - IQ (89.4) / TH (87.5)

TS% : IQ (54.3%) / TH (59.9%)

I love how you conveniently leave out this stat - MINUTES PER GAME:

Halliburton: 30 minutes per game avg for the entire regular season
Quickley: 19

I think you may have missed the point. Per 36 / Per 100 stats are meant to take into account minute differentials. Point being, in terms of shooting, while Haliburton is slightly more efficient, but IQ appears to be a more dynamic scorer.

It's difficult to project how Haliburton would be if on the Knicks. Best guess is that if they drafted him, they would have went elsewhere in the draft instead of IQ and with Thib's defense first focus, TH would likely be coming off the bench in a similar role that IQ currently has.

I loved your initial response cause it had actual thought in it, thanks.

I do feel that there is some diminishing returns on the PER 36 when one guy is near that number and the next you need to double. I am sure there is some math formula that would show those diminishing returns when you get at some multiplier level (ie, we know that if a guy only plays 5 minutes and has a bucket or 2, the per 36 is not reflective of anything).

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?

This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.

And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.

We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton

How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ

Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game

Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?

35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing

It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?

What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?

Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening

I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?

While Haliburton has a better shooting percentage and is higher in assists per - they are fairly close in a number of per 36 / per 100 stats including TS% and scoring. Also, the starting vs. bench is a BS argument when Haliburton has only become a starter over the past 11-12 games and is alongside Fox who garners much of the defensive focus.

Points per 36 - IQ (22.2) / TH (15.5)

Points per 100 possessions - IQ (30.8) / TH (20.7)

Free Throw % - IQ (89.4) / TH (87.5)

TS% : IQ (54.3%) / TH (59.9%)

I love how you conveniently leave out this stat - MINUTES PER GAME:

Halliburton: 30 minutes per game avg for the entire regular season
Quickley: 19

I think you may have missed the point. Per 36 / Per 100 stats are meant to take into account minute differentials. Point being, in terms of shooting, while Haliburton is slightly more efficient, but IQ appears to be a more dynamic scorer.

It's difficult to project how Haliburton would be if on the Knicks. Best guess is that if they drafted him, they would have went elsewhere in the draft instead of IQ and with Thib's defense first focus, TH would likely be coming off the bench in a similar role that IQ currently has.

I loved your initial response cause it had actual thought in it, thanks.

I do feel that there is some diminishing returns on the PER 36 when one guy is near that number and the next you need to double. I am sure there is some math formula that would show those diminishing returns when you get at some multiplier level (ie, we know that if a guy only plays 5 minutes and has a bucket or 2, the per 36 is not reflective of anything).

Not sure there's anyway to measure that outside of scouting. You have guys like Christian Wood that continued producing after getting increased minutes. You have guys like Michael Sweetney, who was an analytics darling in limited minutes but couldn't keep it up. You also have guys who play better with more minutes. Even if someone developed a formula, I think there would too much noise to make any use of it.

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?

This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.

And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.

We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton

How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ

Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game

Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?

35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing

It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?

What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?

Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening

I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?

While Haliburton has a better shooting percentage and is higher in assists per - they are fairly close in a number of per 36 / per 100 stats including TS% and scoring. Also, the starting vs. bench is a BS argument when Haliburton has only become a starter over the past 11-12 games and is alongside Fox who garners much of the defensive focus.

Points per 36 - IQ (22.2) / TH (15.5)

Points per 100 possessions - IQ (30.8) / TH (20.7)

Free Throw % - IQ (89.4) / TH (87.5)

TS% : IQ (54.3%) / TH (59.9%)

I love how you conveniently leave out this stat - MINUTES PER GAME:

Halliburton: 30 minutes per game avg for the entire regular season
Quickley: 19

I think you may have missed the point. Per 36 / Per 100 stats are meant to take into account minute differentials. Point being, in terms of shooting, while Haliburton is slightly more efficient, but IQ appears to be a more dynamic scorer.

It's difficult to project how Haliburton would be if on the Knicks. Best guess is that if they drafted him, they would have went elsewhere in the draft instead of IQ and with Thib's defense first focus, TH would likely be coming off the bench in a similar role that IQ currently has.

I loved your initial response cause it had actual thought in it, thanks.

I do feel that there is some diminishing returns on the PER 36 when one guy is near that number and the next you need to double. I am sure there is some math formula that would show those diminishing returns when you get at some multiplier level (ie, we know that if a guy only plays 5 minutes and has a bucket or 2, the per 36 is not reflective of anything).

Its an interesting question. In fairness, IQ is averaging 19 mins per game - so the per 36 factor/outliers should be more accurate than say a guy averaging 8 mins per game. But I agree that we won's know for sure until he achieves a higher degree of sustainable minutes. Stats aside - a lot comes into play when comparing guys that is not often taken into account. For instance, IQ is in an offensive scheme at the bottom of the NBA in possessions per game and is part of a 2nd unit that does not have an offensive focal point. So essentially there is more pressure on him to score and more end of shot clock heaves. TH is in a more high powered offense with a bunch of guys who can put it in the hole generally better than most on the Knicks.

Conversely - the Knicks are near the top in Defense - which requires significant effort. How much draw does the focus on Defensive energy take away from offensive output? Sacramento is almost at rock bottom in team defensive stats. If TH is being coached to focus most attention on one half of the floor - how much of a plus is that for his offensive game when compared to IQ?

Pet Peeve of mine - Nalod reference Berman's article today on IQ - who pointed out his deficiencies such as not being good on Defense. It kind of pisses me off that they're bashing the kid who's playing on a team with significantly high defensive standards.....while in the same article praising TH for being at the top of the Kia Rookie rankings (he's actually #2) and playing on a team where Defense is avoided like a leper colony. PS - IQ was number 3 in the same rankings but Berman conveniently left that fact out.

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

martin wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?

This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.

And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.

We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton

How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ

Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game

Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?

35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing

It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?

What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?

Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening

I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?

While Haliburton has a better shooting percentage and is higher in assists per - they are fairly close in a number of per 36 / per 100 stats including TS% and scoring. Also, the starting vs. bench is a BS argument when Haliburton has only become a starter over the past 11-12 games and is alongside Fox who garners much of the defensive focus.

Points per 36 - IQ (22.2) / TH (15.5)

Points per 100 possessions - IQ (30.8) / TH (20.7)

Free Throw % - IQ (89.4) / TH (87.5)

TS% : IQ (54.3%) / TH (59.9%)

I love how you conveniently leave out this stat - MINUTES PER GAME:

Halliburton: 30 minutes per game avg for the entire regular season
Quickley: 19

I think you may have missed the point. Per 36 / Per 100 stats are meant to take into account minute differentials. Point being, in terms of shooting, while Haliburton is slightly more efficient, but IQ appears to be a more dynamic scorer.

It's difficult to project how Haliburton would be if on the Knicks. Best guess is that if they drafted him, they would have went elsewhere in the draft instead of IQ and with Thib's defense first focus, TH would likely be coming off the bench in a similar role that IQ currently has.

I loved your initial response cause it had actual thought in it, thanks.

I do feel that there is some diminishing returns on the PER 36 when one guy is near that number and the next you need to double. I am sure there is some math formula that would show those diminishing returns when you get at some multiplier level (ie, we know that if a guy only plays 5 minutes and has a bucket or 2, the per 36 is not reflective of anything).

Its an interesting question. In fairness, IQ is averaging 19 mins per game - so the per 36 factor/outliers should be more accurate than say a guy averaging 8 mins per game. But I agree that we won's know for sure until he achieves a higher degree of sustainable minutes. Stats aside - a lot comes into play when comparing guys that is not often taken into account. For instance, IQ is in an offensive scheme at the bottom of the NBA in possessions per game and is part of a 2nd unit that does not have an offensive focal point. So essentially there is more pressure on him to score and more end of shot clock heaves. TH is in a more high powered offense with a bunch of guys who can put it in the hole generally better than most on the Knicks.

Conversely - the Knicks are near the top in Defense - which requires significant effort. How much draw does the focus on Defensive energy take away from offensive output? Sacramento is almost at rock bottom in team defensive stats. If TH is being coached to focus most attention on one half of the floor - how much of a plus is that for his offensive game when compared to IQ?

Pet Peeve of mine - Nalod reference Berman's article today on IQ - who pointed out his deficiencies such as not being good on Defense. It kind of pisses me off that they're bashing the kid who's playing on a team with significantly high defensive standards.....while in the same article praising TH for being at the top of the Kia Rookie rankings (he's actually #2) and playing on a team where Defense is avoided like a leper colony. PS - IQ was number 3 in the same rankings but Berman conveniently left that fact out.

Berman is a schmuck.

Good point about playing on a defensive oriented team. We are sorting out even more rookie ?'s than usual due to the circumstances around the most recent draft. And as we make our initial appraisals/rush to judgements, although I very much wanted us to pick Halliburton when he was available, I am taking IQ as solace and a we shall see. Not quite the same as pretending to bang a hottie half my age though that is certainly possible as well.

Are we now seeing some signs of why the Knicks drafted Obi and why a little patience may be in order?

Welpee wrote:Are we now seeing some signs of why the Knicks drafted Obi and why a little patience may be in order?

Nah, they're too busy s#!tting on Payton.

We can also look back a year ago -- anyone recall the slurs going to Randle and RJ, Bullock even? Etc?

Knicks fans!

Dudes shot is not as sky high as it was previously?

I sure hope this pumps some confidence into him and it snowballs from here

KnickDanger wrote:

Welpee wrote:Are we now seeing some signs of why the Knicks drafted Obi and why a little patience may be in order?

Nah, they're too busy s#!tting on Payton.

We can also look back a year ago -- anyone recall the slurs going to Randle and RJ, Bullock even? Etc?

Knicks fans!

Yeah, I recall because I was one of those slamming Randle last year. Gladly eating crow on that one.

Thibs breaks his yoot. Then he puts you back together. Question is can a young man stick?

Nalod wrote:Thibs breaks his yoot. Then he puts you back together. Question is can a young man stick?

Agreed obi is playing DEFENSE... if he can come in and score 9-12pts a game that’s awesome for backing up our star in randle

Toppin has looked good the last few games. His defense has noticeably improved. He still is not strong enough for the type of game he wants to play but I think after a year or two of weight training and adding some bulk, he will be a solid player. His three point shot is improving too. I like the pick a lot more than I did at the time we drafted him.

TheGame wrote:Toppin has looked good the last few games. His defense has noticeably improved. He still is not strong enough for the type of game he wants to play but I think after a year or two of weight training and adding some bulk, he will be a solid player. His three point shot is improving too. I like the pick a lot more than I did at the time we drafted him.

Pretty much what I've been saying all season, though I disagree about him bulking up. Yeah, he should get stronger but I don't think he necessarily needs to bulk up. Actually the opposite, I'd like to see him a little leaner and quicker for what he needs to do in the league to be successful. Think about, Randle got little leaner and the difference made him a MVP candidate.

Welpee wrote:

TheGame wrote:Toppin has looked good the last few games. His defense has noticeably improved. He still is not strong enough for the type of game he wants to play but I think after a year or two of weight training and adding some bulk, he will be a solid player. His three point shot is improving too. I like the pick a lot more than I did at the time we drafted him.

Pretty much what I've been saying all season, though I disagree about him bulking up. Yeah, he should get stronger but I don't think he necessarily needs to bulk up. Actually the opposite, I'd like to see him a little leaner and quicker for what he needs to do in the league to be successful. Think about, Randle got little leaner and the difference made him a MVP candidate.

Randle got leaner but he is still strong as a bull. Toppin wants to play a low post game, with a mix of pick and pop and pick and roll. He is not strong enough to back the average PF down. He needs to get at least strong enough to back people down in the post. Once he can do that, his whole game will open up.

TheGame wrote:The only thing I was concerned about with OB was his defense. However his defense has looked pretty solid, he’s not great defensively but he’s not terrible either. His offense is going to come. He already has a pretty solid looking jumpshot and he has Uber athleticism. Once he gets some more reps and adds about 20 pounds of muscle, this kid is going to be destroying people. Fans on this board just need to have patience.

I like this take. I was not high on his selection, but let’s be positive. For all the reasons you note. Far too early for the bust category.

TheGame wrote:

Welpee wrote:

TheGame wrote:Toppin has looked good the last few games. His defense has noticeably improved. He still is not strong enough for the type of game he wants to play but I think after a year or two of weight training and adding some bulk, he will be a solid player. His three point shot is improving too. I like the pick a lot more than I did at the time we drafted him.

Pretty much what I've been saying all season, though I disagree about him bulking up. Yeah, he should get stronger but I don't think he necessarily needs to bulk up. Actually the opposite, I'd like to see him a little leaner and quicker for what he needs to do in the league to be successful. Think about, Randle got little leaner and the difference made him a MVP candidate.

Randle got leaner but he is still strong as a bull. Toppin wants to play a low post game, with a mix of pick and pop and pick and roll. He is not strong enough to back the average PF down. He needs to get at least strong enough to back people down in the post. Once he can do that, his whole game will open up.

Again, we agree about improving his strength. I don't necessarily agree that he needs to bulk up/get bigger to accomplish what you mentioned.

Toppin will be fine.

Those calling him a bust will be surprised by him next year and three years from now.

He is athletic. He can pass. He is working night and day on his shot. He will get stronger and be a force in this league.

xblvdels3 wrote:Toppin will be fine.

Those calling him a bust will be surprised by him next year and three years from now.

He is athletic. He can pass. He is working night and day on his shot. He will get stronger and be a force in this league.

+1

Huge difference mentally between Obi and Knox. To me, that's why I think Obi will be fine and Knox...well...he's going to be Knox.

Some of you are too impatient. You knew Obi didnt have the time most rooks have to get ready for the season. Tougher for bigs, they dont handle the rock as much.

In the movies they sometimes say "Its quiet...too quiet."
Felt the same way about Obi's game.