What's new
By:

Draft Knight=change offense+lots of Hayward

Beantown

Beantown

Well-Known Member
From watching Knight he is just not the type of PG thsy should dominate the offense/ball and be the one setting up plays. Too many turnovers and doesnt have the athleticism to break down an offense and finish at the rim.

But Knight could still work with the Jazz...

See I believe Knight would best fit with a team like the Lakers, Sacremento, Clippers, etc. Basically where a teams offense runs through the SG. Towards the end of the season Hayward showed his great skills at passing and setting up his teammates. From watching Knight I believe Hayward is a superior playmaker and passer.

So if the majority of the offense ran through Hayward and our post players Knight really could be a great fit. He will spread the floor with his shooting and defend well.

But if the Jazz plan on running the Jazz system of old with a PG dominated offense then Knight should not be the future PG.
 
If that is the case though why not just draft Jimmer at 12? Chances are Knight will not be the shooter he is, Jimmer shot 40% from 3's and most came with an insane degree of difficulty (off balance, 25' +)
Knight is a better defender of course, but camp would indicate Jimmer should be able to stay in front of most PGs.
 
Jazz4ever said:
If that is the case though why not just draft Jimmer at 12? Chances are Knight will not be the shooter he is, Jimmer shot 40% from 3's and most came with an insane degree of difficulty (off balance, 25' +)
Knight is a better defender of course, but camp would indicate Jimmer should be able to stay in front of most PGs.
Click to expand...

Yes - I second this.

I'm sorry but when you started saying Hayward will help with playmaking - you've basically said "Draft Jimmer @ #12 and don't waste a #3 pick on Knight".
 
So based on one season, you've permanently typecast Knight as a shoot-first PG who will always be turnover prone?

BTW, Hayward was a turnover waiting to happen last season. He had several careless passes go the other way for fast breaks: 81 assists and 70 TO's. Is that a "playmaker?" Granted, he was a rookie and got better as the season went along...and he was only 20. Knight, on the other hand, is a seasoned veteran. He's had a full four years of college, has reached his ceiling and will never improve. Oh wait...he's only 18? Hmmm, I wonder if Knight will improve.

Please tell me which is the better NBA prospect from the numbers below (first college seasons):
MIN PTS REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF FG% FT% 3P% PPS

35.9 17.3 4.0 4.2 3.2 1.33 .7 .2 2.2 .423 .795 .377 1.28

27.1 6.3 3.0 4.5 1.8 2.46 1.4 .2 2.4 .426 .533 .354 1.15

Obviously, the TO's are high on the first player. I won't argue that one. Knight was also the primary scorer on his team. Could be a result of not having that center they were counting on. In case anyone is wondering, the second player is Deron Williams in his first season at Illinois. And what kind of stats did Deron have his first season with the Jazz? 11 and 5 on 42%. So he upped his scoring, but shot about the same percentage. Despite his size, Deron has trouble finishing at the rim. He routinely gets blocked or puts up a terrible looking shot.

I'm not necessarily advocating Knight. If Williams is there at #3, I'd take Derrick. But to just dismiss Knight as a terrible PG is disingenuous. He's a very good pro prospect given his age and one season of college. Certainly not in the category of Wall or Rose, but then again, I think we can all acknowkledge there are no "superstars" in this draft. Personally, I don't buy the argument the draft is "weak." There might not be the same caliber there usually is at the top 3 or 5, but I believe the depth is comparablt to past years.
 
Would you take Irving? If so, their a/to ratios weren't too far off. Why is Knight turnover prone and not Irving?
 
GlassEater said:
So based on one season, you've permanently typecast Knight as a shoot-first PG who will always be turnover prone?

BTW, Hayward was a turnover waiting to happen last season. He had several careless passes go the other way for fast breaks: 81 assists and 70 TO's. Is that a "playmaker?" Granted, he was a rookie and got better as the season went along...and he was only 20. Knight, on the other hand, is a seasoned veteran. He's had a full four years of college, has reached his ceiling and will never improve. Oh wait...he's only 18? Hmmm, I wonder if Knight will improve.

Please tell me which is the better NBA prospect from the numbers below (first college seasons):
MIN PTS REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF FG% FT% 3P% PPS

35.9 17.3 4.0 4.2 3.2 1.33 .7 .2 2.2 .423 .795 .377 1.28

27.1 6.3 3.0 4.5 1.8 2.46 1.4 .2 2.4 .426 .533 .354 1.15

Obviously, the TO's are high on the first player. I won't argue that one. Knight was also the primary scorer on his team. Could be a result of not having that center they were counting on. In case anyone is wondering, the second player is Deron Williams in his first season at Illinois. And what kind of stats did Deron have his first season with the Jazz? 11 and 5 on 42%. So he upped his scoring, but shot about the same percentage. Despite his size, Deron has trouble finishing at the rim. He routinely gets blocked or puts up a terrible looking shot.

I'm not necessarily advocating Knight. If Williams is there at #3, I'd take Derrick. But to just dismiss Knight as a terrible PG is disingenuous. He's a very good pro prospect given his age and one season of college. Certainly not in the category of Wall or Rose, but then again, I think we can all acknowkledge there are no "superstars" in this draft. Personally, I don't buy the argument the draft is "weak." There might not be the same caliber there usually is at the top 3 or 5, but I believe the depth is comparablt to past years.
Click to expand...

Im not saying he would be a terrible PG, he will just succeed more in a system thats doesnt need him to dominate the ball. Lots of scouting reports have said this about Knight.
 
GlassEater said:
So based on one season, you've permanently typecast Knight as a shoot-first PG who will always be turnover prone?

BTW, Hayward was a turnover waiting to happen last season. He had several careless passes go the other way for fast breaks: 81 assists and 70 TO's. Is that a "playmaker?" Granted, he was a rookie and got better as the season went along...and he was only 20. Knight, on the other hand, is a seasoned veteran. He's had a full four years of college, has reached his ceiling and will never improve. Oh wait...he's only 18? Hmmm, I wonder if Knight will improve.

Please tell me which is the better NBA prospect from the numbers below (first college seasons):
MIN PTS REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF FG% FT% 3P% PPS

35.9 17.3 4.0 4.2 3.2 1.33 .7 .2 2.2 .423 .795 .377 1.28

27.1 6.3 3.0 4.5 1.8 2.46 1.4 .2 2.4 .426 .533 .354 1.15

Obviously, the TO's are high on the first player. I won't argue that one. Knight was also the primary scorer on his team. Could be a result of not having that center they were counting on. In case anyone is wondering, the second player is Deron Williams in his first season at Illinois. And what kind of stats did Deron have his first season with the Jazz? 11 and 5 on 42%. So he upped his scoring, but shot about the same percentage. Despite his size, Deron has trouble finishing at the rim. He routinely gets blocked or puts up a terrible looking shot.

I'm not necessarily advocating Knight. If Williams is there at #3, I'd take Derrick. But to just dismiss Knight as a terrible PG is disingenuous. He's a very good pro prospect given his age and one season of college. Certainly not in the category of Wall or Rose, but then again, I think we can all acknowkledge there are no "superstars" in this draft. Personally, I don't buy the argument the draft is "weak." There might not be the same caliber there usually is at the top 3 or 5, but I believe the depth is comparablt to past years.
Click to expand...

I agree it's pretty far fetched given his handle. But Hayward has amazing court vision, he was always finding the the open guy on double teams at season end I noticed. I don't see that with Knight, he is twice the dribbler Hayward is obviously, but fails to find the open man, or doesn't recognize it quickly enough.
 
green said:
Again, everyone keeps saying how Irving is far and away the better player. Show me.
Click to expand...

Show me who said anything about Irving (in this thread). Your bizarre obsession borders on trolling.

And I already have. It's fine if you want to pretend that I haven't.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...Brandon-Knight&p=152552&viewfull=1#post152552

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?4631-2011-draft.....&p=152557&viewfull=1#post152557

But since I'm bored and this has turned into a pet project of mine, here are more stats that substantiate the UNANIMOUS belief that Irving is better than Knight (as if that wasn't strong enough reason to believe). Irving shot 10% better from every distance (from 2, from 3, from the FT line, and total FG%), in addition to taking two entire more FTs per game. He sports a PPS that is 50% higher than that of Knight's. As a playmaker/passer, Irving doesn't stand out against the entire field of PGs (Darius Morris pretty soundly drubs everyone), but he's significantly ahead of Knight there too. https://www.draftexpress.com/stats....&pos=PG&stage=all&min=20&conference=0&sort=16

Knight got a small percentage more of rebounds than Irving.

Irving stole the ball at twice the rate. Irving blocked shots at four times the rate.

Irving's PER was a blistering 32.5 (Lebron James-level), Knight's was 19.2.

While you could make the argument that Irving's numbers would suffer throughout the year just because such ridiculous numbers have a way of doing that (as with Kemba Walker), you could also make the case that as such a young player he could've even improved a significant amount (like Brandon Knight improved). But if we're arguing statistics, it's not close.

P.S. Green, I love you.
 
Last edited:
NUMBERICA said:
Did Irving fart in the general direction of one of your loved ones or something?
Click to expand...

Green points out a fact and it's construed as an insult? Yes, let's make sure Irving goes number one at all costs. Nobody dare point out that he might have any weaknesses in his game, please.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Green points out a fact and it's construed as an insult? Yes, let's make sure Irving goes number one at all costs. Nobody dare point out that he might have any weaknesses in his game, please.
Click to expand...

Define "fact"? How does one qualify or quantify "not much different"? Does pace-adjusting account for anything, or context?

More than half of his posts in the last couple of weeks have been about the same thing and are plainly absurd. Again, no one in this thread brought up Irving. That's not the first time either.

He's allowed to say what he wants, I just think it's bizarre to be interjecting with a straw-man argument, and a very poor one at that.
 
Jazz4ever said:
If that is the case though why not just draft Jimmer at 12? Chances are Knight will not be the shooter he is, Jimmer shot 40% from 3's and most came with an insane degree of difficulty (off balance, 25' +)
Knight is a better defender of course, but camp would indicate Jimmer should be able to stay in front of most PGs.
Click to expand...

Doing lane slides well doesn't make you a adequate defender.
 
I think we should take Kanter even if Williams is still on the board, for the same reason Min might not take him, if he can be a traditional three then take him if not we need to go with Kanter.

Another reason I take Kanter, I'm a gambling man no one has seen him play.... Whatif he is that superstar can't miss player this draft is missing. Remember he never got to play for KU. Who knows he might have played himself into the number one pick.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
I think we should take Kanter even if Williams is still on the board, for the same reason Min might not take him, if he can be a traditional three then take him if not we need to go with Kanter.

Another reason I take Kanter, I'm a gambling man no one has seen him play.... Whatif he is that superstar can't miss player this draft is missing. Remember he never got to play for KU. Who knows he might have played himself into the number one pick.
Click to expand...

Or he might have played himself out of the lottery against better competition...who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top