|
|
Post by axios on Apr 29, 2009 9:48:08 GMT -5
I've looked up and down and if we dont get lucky with the 1 or 2, Im thinking about Stephen Curry. I think the kid has the IQ, the passing ability and the stroke. Im not saying he's an allstar, but who is? We are definitely going to gave to get some guys who can play defense. can you imagine this kid running off of screens or when LBJdrives and kicks out to an open Danilllo or Curry? They just dont make shooters like they used to anymore and this kid has the pedigree. some muscle and another inch and he's our point guard.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on Apr 29, 2009 16:34:21 GMT -5
I've looked up and down and if we dont get lucky with the 1 or 2, Im thinking about Stephen Curry. I think the kid has the IQ, the passing ability and the stroke. Im not saying he's an allstar, but who is? We are definitely going to gave to get some guys who can play defense. can you imagine this kid running off of screens or when LBJdrives and kicks out to an open Danilllo or Curry? They just dont make shooters like they used to anymore and this kid has the pedigree. some muscle and another inch and he's our point guard. I'm a Curry(Steph not Eddie) guy and i think the knicks like him alot. He'd be a good fit for D'Antoni's offense. If we end up at 8 and pick Curry I'd be OK with that. |
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on Apr 29, 2009 17:05:39 GMT -5
Curry gets the JJ Redick tag that he can't get his own shot. It's undeserved. He worked hard on his handle and could even play some PG at this juncture. Everything else in his game is polished and he's likely one of the 5 smartest kids in this draft. He's not a great athlete but if he can get his shot he will hit his shot. What more could you want? I'd take him.
|
|
|
|
Post by daglazer on Apr 29, 2009 20:16:24 GMT -5
I think Curry is the classic great college player. BTW, in college, Redick could create his own shot. It is a big difference in the NBA. I do not see this kid as a point and he is way too small to be a starting 2. Lawson would be a much better pick and he will be there at 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by axios on Apr 30, 2009 8:43:35 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing DA, then I was watched how good a passer this guy is, and he does have some handle. this kid doesnt need any daylight either to take his shot. i dont think JJ put up the numbers this kid did, while every team game planned just for him, and he played with no one. I think JJ had some decent teammates, I could be wrong. I like Lawson, but i think you cant pass up a kid who can shoot like curry can.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbaer10314 on Apr 30, 2009 11:55:16 GMT -5
<< Im not saying he's an allstar, but who is? >>
Again with the career predictions. Why do we INSIST on doing this?
I'll say it again--we can't waste time wondering who will be an All-Star, or a superstar, or a team star, or a starter. First the Knicks need to learn how to win games. After that the stars will emerge. Okay?
|
|
|
|
Post by neilverson on Apr 30, 2009 12:32:52 GMT -5
The Curry I saw in college got his shot whenever he wanted. Remember his poor shooting in the Preseason NIT game? Well I was there, and when it counted he got free and knocked down the big ones. He's a big time shooter.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on Apr 30, 2009 15:55:22 GMT -5
I think Curry is the classic great college player. BTW, in college, Redick could create his own shot. It is a big difference in the NBA. I do not see this kid as a point and he is way too small to be a starting 2. Lawson would be a much better pick and he will be there at 8. This is the fun of this time of year for Knick fans. I don't see Lawson as a major PG. he's quick but too short and a good college shooter but not a special one. Some see chris paul; some see terrell brandon, some see john bagley; some see khalid el-amin. i don't know but i am curious to see how he performs on a team that isn't so overstacked ( 7-8 draftable players) |
|
|
|
Post by ironman95 on May 1, 2009 16:38:11 GMT -5
Let me go on record as being highly opposed to drafting Stephon Curry. He is exactly what the Knicks don't need, and will not fit. He would be Starbury all over again. He does not have point guard skills good enough to run a high-powered offense. He is not big enough to guard SG's. Yes he can score, but he won't improve the overall team on offense, at least not by much, and he will be a defensive liability, and we have plenty enough of those. This game of basketball is about defense and cohesion, and he will bring neither to the team. He is certainly not Chris Paul, not even close. He is a scoring, sort-of point guard. Been there, done that, time to move on. I'd much rather have one of the Ty's. Especially Evans. There is no comparison, not even close, as what each will bring to a team. Anyone advocating drafting Curry and not Evans is just plain insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on May 1, 2009 17:09:27 GMT -5
Let me go on record as being highly opposed to drafting Stephon Curry. He is exactly what the Knicks don't need, and will not fit. He would be Starbury all over again. He does not have point guard skills good enough to run a high-powered offense. He is not big enough to guard SG's. Yes he can score, but he won't improve the overall team on offense, at least not by much, and he will be a defensive liability, and we have plenty enough of those. This game of basketball is about defense and cohesion, and he will bring neither to the team. He is certainly not Chris Paul, not even close. He is a scoring, sort-of point guard. Been there, done that, time to move on. I'd much rather have one of the Ty's. Especially Evans. There is no comparison, not even close, as what each will bring to a team. Anyone advocating drafting Curry and not Evans is just plain insane. That's a bit "strong" Iron. I see a lot of pundits who like Curry's game and don't have the same reservations you do. Are they insane because you disagree? Curry is smart therefore any Marbury analogy goes out the window. He is a fit for D'antoni which is another consideration. He might be the designated scorer to replace Nate Robinson if we trade him. Lastly he has a good handle, can get his own shot and while not a great finisher he is adequate which is exactly what his PG skills are right now. His defense is a perfect fit for our Knicks. ; ) Keep in mind the guy switched to PG this year. He did all right too but he is not creative with the ball. He's a lights out shooter and if you remember his father that was a pretty good player to have on your team. That said there might be better choices and we have 55 days to study and discuss them. We also have a 3% chance of getting one of the top 3 picks too. Isn't it time we started getting lucky? ; ) |
|
|
|
Post by whensly on May 1, 2009 22:29:32 GMT -5
my hunch is walsh can't resist drafting his new rick smits when Thableet is sitting on the board.
much to the dismay of many including D ant and perhaps some free agents
|
|
|
|
Post by ironman95 on May 3, 2009 10:57:47 GMT -5
Let me go on record as being highly opposed to drafting Stephon Curry. He is exactly what the Knicks don't need, and will not fit. He would be Starbury all over again. He does not have point guard skills good enough to run a high-powered offense. He is not big enough to guard SG's. Yes he can score, but he won't improve the overall team on offense, at least not by much, and he will be a defensive liability, and we have plenty enough of those. This game of basketball is about defense and cohesion, and he will bring neither to the team. He is certainly not Chris Paul, not even close. He is a scoring, sort-of point guard. Been there, done that, time to move on. I'd much rather have one of the Ty's. Especially Evans. There is no comparison, not even close, as what each will bring to a team. Anyone advocating drafting Curry and not Evans is just plain insane. That's a bit "strong" Iron. I see a lot of pundits who like Curry's game and don't have the same reservations you do. Are they insane because you disagree? Curry is smart therefore any Marbury analogy goes out the window. He is a fit for D'antoni which is another consideration. He might be the designated scorer to replace Nate Robinson if we trade him. Lastly he has a good handle, can get his own shot and while not a great finisher he is adequate which is exactly what his PG skills are right now. His defense is a perfect fit for our Knicks. ; ) Keep in mind the guy switched to PG this year. He did all right too but he is not creative with the ball. He's a lights out shooter and if you remember his father that was a pretty good player to have on your team. That said there might be better choices and we have 55 days to study and discuss them. We also have a 3% chance of getting one of the top 3 picks too. Isn't it time we started getting lucky? ; ) I meant to say it strongly, because that is how I feel. I have seen most of these guards play, and I do not want Curry at all. Evans also switched to point guard and his team went undefeated until late in the Big Dance. How did Curry's team do? Both Evans for sure and Lawson(somewhat argueably) are better players overall than Curry. Yes Curry can score in college, but I think he will struggle in the the NBA. Evans game will translate well to the NBA, much like Derrick Rose, whom he replaced at Memphis. Lawson, while undersized will bring floor leadership and toughness to an NBA team, that Curry will not. Just as an aside, as much as I love Derrick Rose's game, I still would have drafted Michael Beasley first, and I still think in the long run Beasley will prove to be the more valuable player. Even in a reserve role, and how much longer will that last, he is putting up pretty good numbers. He is the perfect complement to D. Wade. |
|
|
|
Post by irish2u2 on May 3, 2009 19:51:47 GMT -5
That's a bit "strong" Iron. I see a lot of pundits who like Curry's game and don't have the same reservations you do. Are they insane because you disagree? Curry is smart therefore any Marbury analogy goes out the window. He is a fit for D'antoni which is another consideration. He might be the designated scorer to replace Nate Robinson if we trade him. Lastly he has a good handle, can get his own shot and while not a great finisher he is adequate which is exactly what his PG skills are right now. His defense is a perfect fit for our Knicks. ; ) Keep in mind the guy switched to PG this year. He did all right too but he is not creative with the ball. He's a lights out shooter and if you remember his father that was a pretty good player to have on your team. That said there might be better choices and we have 55 days to study and discuss them. We also have a 3% chance of getting one of the top 3 picks too. Isn't it time we started getting lucky? ; ) I meant to say it strongly, because that is how I feel. I have seen most of these guards play, and I do not want Curry at all. Evans also switched to point guard and his team went undefeated until late in the Big Dance. How did Curry's team do? Both Evans for sure and Lawson(somewhat argueably) are better players overall than Curry. Yes Curry can score in college, but I think he will struggle in the the NBA. Evans game will translate well to the NBA, much like Derrick Rose, whom he replaced at Memphis. Lawson, while undersized will bring floor leadership and toughness to an NBA team, that Curry will not. Just as an aside, as much as I love Derrick Rose's game, I still would have drafted Michael Beasley first, and I still think in the long run Beasley will prove to be the more valuable player. Even in a reserve role, and how much longer will that last, he is putting up pretty good numbers. He is the perfect complement to D. Wade. Iron Memphis is a LOT more talented than Davidson. Curry has carried his team and that tells me something. He's also done it against some top flight competition. He had 44 against Oklahoma and NC State, 32 against South Carolina and 29 against Duke. As for Rose and Beasley we disagree again. I take Rose every time over Beasley. Both are very good players but Derrick has lots more upside and his defense can be over the top. Just ask Brian Scalabrine. ; ) We are far from seeing the best of Derrick Rose. That said I'll take Mike Beasley and be very, very happy.  But again, we have a lot of time to figure all this out. |
|
|
|
Post by axios on May 4, 2009 8:32:57 GMT -5
I like Rose over Beasley, didnt think that way until after this year, though. Beasley doesnt look like a gamer. As far as Evans, Lawson, Curry...I hope Walsh and Dant have a little more clarity than I do, as I've been vaciliating back and forth with who I want. 2 weeks ago, earl clarke, last week Curry this week?
|
|
|
|
Post by greatgates on May 4, 2009 15:34:31 GMT -5
That's a bit "strong" Iron. I see a lot of pundits who like Curry's game and don't have the same reservations you do. Are they insane because you disagree? Curry is smart therefore any Marbury analogy goes out the window. He is a fit for D'antoni which is another consideration. He might be the designated scorer to replace Nate Robinson if we trade him. Lastly he has a good handle, can get his own shot and while not a great finisher he is adequate which is exactly what his PG skills are right now. His defense is a perfect fit for our Knicks. ; ) Keep in mind the guy switched to PG this year. He did all right too but he is not creative with the ball. He's a lights out shooter and if you remember his father that was a pretty good player to have on your team. That said there might be better choices and we have 55 days to study and discuss them. We also have a 3% chance of getting one of the top 3 picks too. Isn't it time we started getting lucky? ; ) I meant to say it strongly, because that is how I feel. I have seen most of these guards play, and I do not want Curry at all. Evans also switched to point guard and his team went undefeated until late in the Big Dance. How did Curry's team do? Both Evans for sure and Lawson(somewhat argueably) are better players overall than Curry. Yes Curry can score in college, but I think he will struggle in the the NBA. Evans game will translate well to the NBA, much like Derrick Rose, whom he replaced at Memphis. Lawson, while undersized will bring floor leadership and toughness to an NBA team, that Curry will not. Just as an aside, as much as I love Derrick Rose's game, I still would have drafted Michael Beasley first, and I still think in the long run Beasley will prove to be the more valuable player. Even in a reserve role, and how much longer will that last, he is putting up pretty good numbers. He is the perfect complement to D. Wade. [ b]Iron: insane is such a strong term but it does show your passion. Equally passionately, I'd say anyone who prefers beasley over rose is also insane.
now back to steph curry. i also like evans alot but he can't shoot and of course evans led memphis to a great season. they have a stacked team and play tulsa and CCNY every game. And speaking of stacked teams carolina has 6 or 7 draftable players in the next 2 drafts. I could lead that team along way.
I do love passionate talk about the draft and where we should go so please respond in as "passionate" a manner as possible.[/b][/color] |
|
