Well, this tells you how important jazzfanz thinks physical profiles are. Sure, Knight has tools to be a better player. But I'd rather follow Kemba into battle.
It's not entirely about who you'd go to war with today - it's about who you think will be the better NBA player. That's what the draft is about, evaluating a body of work and then projecting how that player translates down the road, sometimes as far as 2-3 years. Arguments can be made for both players - but I went with Knight.Well, this tells you how important jazzfanz thinks physical profiles are. Sure, Knight has tools to be a better player. But I'd rather follow Kemba into battle.
The more I hear about Locke the less credibility I think he has. Anyone who watched Williams and Love in college knows their games are nothing like each other and that Williams can play above the rim while Love was always a below-the-rim player. Add in the fact that Williams has a substantially longer wingspan and standing reach - and really the only thing they have in common is they played in the Pac10.David Locke
Combine measurements - Derrick Williams similar to Kevin Love
Knight. He has the length, athleticism and intelligence to be a Russell Westbrook type player with more range and consistency and less of a tendency to chuck.
Kemba is UCONN's version of Mateen Cleaves.
A nice winner at the college level.
Complete disaster at the pro level.
I picked Knight, but I do wonder. I know he hasn't played a single pro game yet, but Kemba reminds me quite a bit of a shorter DWade in his style of play. Both are physical, beat people from the perimeter on athleticism and determination rather than size, and can distribute but prefer to score. I just really worry about the fact that he is roughly 4 inches shorter.
I don't see why Knight is drastically better than Walker. Walker had better numbers. His team was better. Why would he be a disaster and Knight be a stud?
Also Walker doesn't seem to have character issues like Cleaves did.