# Walsh was unsure about Jennings



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Tonight the Knicks face the point guard they passed over in the draft, Milwaukee's Brandon Jennings, who is off to a quick start. Knicks president Donnie Walsh says he was unsure about Jennings and that is why they didn't select him.
> 
> "I couldn't get a feel for his game," Walsh told the New York Daily News. "Jordan Hill was way up on our list. One scout said he thought Brandon Jennings was very good. I said, 'If he's that good you should come in my door every five minutes and tell me.'"


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors

Walsh, maybe you should have listen to your scout. It would have been nice to have drafted an NBA ready player now instead of someone who is going to rot on the bench.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

He was unsure about Jennings, not sold on Sessions, not willing to pay for Jason Kidd...


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

unsure about jennings but positive about J. Hill?

hill isn't very impressive. and I would've gambled on the PG knowing that free agency is going to have a couple of forwards there. 

Right now, it's looking like walsh dropped the ball on that 1


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i'm willing to wait on hill, guys who come to the league with his skillsets tend to be very good in the nba ( good jumpshots, active rebounder, good athlete) he is just completely clueless on how to play with such a weight/strength disadvantage ...i wouldn't even have him on the bench until he put on 15 pounds of muscle...i'd have in the D-league somewhere .

as for jennings yeah he's good and playing for skiles he is gonna look awesome but he is a poor fit for the knicks and their future plans...ball dominating pg's dont work well with ball dominating wing players , especially when the pg is a weak shooter.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> i'm willing to wait on hill, guys who come to the league with his skillsets tend to be very good in the nba ( good jumpshots, active rebounder, good athlete) he is just completely clueless on how to play with such a weight/strength disadvantage ...i wouldn't even have him on the bench until he put on 15 pounds of muscle...i'd have in the D-league somewhere .
> 
> as for jennings yeah he's good and playing for skiles he is gonna look awesome but he is a poor fit for the knicks and their future plans...ball dominating pg's dont work well with ball dominating wing players , especially when the pg is a weak shooter.


Jennings has been dominating the ball out of necessity for the Bucks. They don't have many good scorers, He's happy to pass the ball, the bucks have been bad at catching and shooting it.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Basel Anti-Star said:


> He was unsure about Jennings, not sold on Sessions, not willing to pay for Jason Kidd...


Not willing to pay for Jason Kidd? We offered him as much as we possibly could; Kidd just took the richer offer.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> i'm willing to wait on hill, guys who come to the league with his skillsets tend to be very good in the nba ( good jumpshots, active rebounder, good athlete) he is just completely clueless on how to play with such a weight/strength disadvantage ...i wouldn't even have him on the bench until he put on 15 pounds of muscle...i'd have in the D-league somewhere .
> 
> as for jennings yeah he's good and playing for skiles he is gonna look awesome but he is a poor fit for the knicks and their future plans...ball dominating pg's dont work well with ball dominating wing players , especially when the pg is a weak shooter.


Ironically Grinch, Jennings is far from the PG you suggested and the PG I thought he was going to be. Dude, is good. In fact, very good. He is quite intelligent and does an excellent job of moving the ball and getting his teammates involved. Even scarier is that at 6-1 and a string bean, the guy is excellent at playing defense. Although, I'm not sure whether this streak will continue but Jennigs is also shoooting the ball particularly well and by that I mean not settling for shots and still making them. He's made me really think Walsh was a fool for at least not picking up a second draft pick to select him.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Jennings may end up good, but...*

He is not all that you folks think at this point. That friggin shot is ugly and I guarantee you he won't be near the % he is now at the end of the year. He is ultra quick, though, and can finish with either hand. For him to be great, he will need to shoot better as teams are going to lay off him as his % drops. Disagree with his defense Twinkie. He's alright, but not what I would call a GOOD defender at this point. More valuable than Hill at this point? Yes. Two years down the road? I have no idea.

I think the selection of Hill was somewhat of an insurance pick. And you know what? In2-3 years he might be a very good center in this system. Looks like he will block 2+ and get 8-9 boards, and maybe be a 15-20 point scorer. Just not yet. The way the other guys are playing, I agree with Kman. Ready or not, throw the young guys to the wolves.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

narek said:


> Jennings has been dominating the ball out of necessity for the Bucks. They don't have many good scorers, He's happy to pass the ball, the bucks have been bad at catching and shooting it.


i dont doubt he has to dominate the ball...my thing is can he play off of it?

he never has done well with it before...if you are playing with a dominant wing , you have to be able to do alot off the ball...and b. jennings at this point has no proven he can do much without the ball.


----------



## gw795 (Jul 18, 2009)

If we had picked Jennings rather then Hill, DeJuan Blair most likely would've still been on the board. Hill is way too raw and is going to spend the next two years on the bench trying to adapt to the NBA (if he ever does). Look at this article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...icks_rookie_jordan_hill_in_uphill_battle.html

This is a quote from Mike D' Antoni from the article

"He has a ways to go," Mike D'Antoni said following the Knicks' preseason finale on Wednesday. "He looks like a deer in the headlights."

It's never a good sign when a coach says that one of his players "looks like a deer in the headlights."


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Jennings may end up good, but...*



alphaorange said:


> He is not all that you folks think at this point. That friggin shot is ugly and I guarantee you he won't be near the % he is now at the end of the year. He is ultra quick, though, and can finish with either hand. For him to be great, he will need to shoot better as teams are going to lay off him as his % drops. Disagree with his defense Twinkie. He's alright, but not what I would call a GOOD defender at this point. More valuable than Hill at this point? Yes. Two years down the road? I have no idea.
> 
> I think the selection of Hill was somewhat of an insurance pick. And you know what? In2-3 years he might be a very good center in this system. Looks like he will block 2+ and get 8-9 boards, and maybe be a 15-20 point scorer. Just not yet. The way the other guys are playing, I agree with Kman. Ready or not, throw the young guys to the wolves.


That friggin shot is wet. He has such a quick release that it makes it very difficult to ever contest. Save one piss poor shooting performance against the Wolves (4-16, which resulted in a "W" anyway) he's been very solid scoring the ball from a PG standpoint. Excellent was also a poor choice to describe Jennings defense but its pretty good. He gets bodied by bigger guards but he defends the guys he should defend well, pretty well. I agree though that it is too early to consider him better than Hill but I just strongly believe we should have looked into trading for him in retrospect; and that is coming from his harshest critic before the draft.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Wet?*

He shot crappy against the Knicks too. Take out his drives (which he is great at), and his % plummets. It is far from wet. Promise you it will be under 40% and probably be under 35% from 3 by year's end. Separate the layups from the jumpers. You are the ONLY guy I hve ever seen say that he actually had a good jumper.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

To have such a reputation he must feel dumb drafting the stereotypical athletic big man with no skills.

Then you don't even put him oncourt to create a semblance of a skillset...

That said Jennings was no slam dunk. His height and his jumper were legitimate concerns *at that time*.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

lol wilson chandler is shooting 34% from the field at the moment.

duhon - 25%

nate - 28%

so basically he is better than what the knicks currently have

edited


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Jennings lit it up tonight, dropped a double nickle what a horrible draft by the Knicks. One thing you can say about Isiah, he would have pulled the trigger on this young man, and basketball would have least been exciting.


----------



## Jesukki (Mar 3, 2009)

*Re: Wet?*



alphaorange said:


> He shot crappy against the Knicks too. Take out his drives (which he is great at), and his % plummets. It is far from wet. Promise you it will be under 40% and probably be under 35% from 3 by year's end. Separate the layups from the jumpers. You are the ONLY guy I hve ever seen say that he actually had a good jumper.


How are you feeling now?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Geezus, dude...*

The guy had a great scoring game. One game doesn't make a season. If he ends up being a good shooter, I have no problem saying it. His form is not conducive to high %. As a point guard, his assist/TO ratio is putrid. He is more Iverson than Nash at this point and I have never been a fan of 1on1 or ISO ball. How many titles does AI have? That's right...none.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Geezus, dude...*



alphaorange said:


> The guy had a great scoring game. One game doesn't make a season. If he ends up being a good shooter, I have no problem saying it. His form is not conducive to high %. As a point guard, his assist/TO ratio is putrid. He is more Iverson than Nash at this point and I have never been a fan of 1on1 or ISO ball. How many titles does AI have? That's right...none.


To that end, how many titles does Nash have? More importantly, has Iverson ever had a supporting cast member as good as Amare Stoudamire/Shawn Marion (in his prime)? I never been a fan of Iverson (and do believe his style of play is not conducive to winning) but you got to call a spade, a spade. 

I also still do not see anything wrong with Jennings form. Clearly the guy can put the ball in the hole on more than just drives to the paint. Moreover, he is much better at moving the ball than you give him credit for. His impact isn't reflected in the terms of assists because the Bucks don't really have players at this point (with Michael Redd out) capable of converting shots.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re: Geezus, dude...*



alphaorange said:


> The guy had a great scoring game. One game doesn't make a season. If he ends up being a good shooter, I have no problem saying it. His form is not conducive to high %. As a point guard, his assist/TO ratio is putrid. He is more Iverson than Nash at this point and I have never been a fan of 1on1 or ISO ball. How many titles does AI have? That's right...none.


How many titles do Steve Nash and John Stockton have? That's right...none. And Jennings is far from Iverson. He legitimately looks for his teammates and doesn't constantly isolate. He plays the pick & roll much more frequently and with better success.

Sure, Jennings has a sub-par assist/turnover ratio, but really, he's on the Bucks. Who does he have to pass to? They need him to score right now and he's stepping up.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Geezus, dude...*



Pacers Fan said:


> How many titles do Steve Nash and John Stockton have? That's right...none. And Jennings is far from Iverson. He legitimately looks for his teammates and doesn't constantly isolate. He plays the pick & roll much more frequently and with better success.
> 
> *Sure, Jennings has a sub-par assist/turnover ratio, but really, he's on the Bucks. Who does he have to pass to? *They need him to score right now and he's stepping up.


Even more importantly is that the guy is just a rookie. Compare his assist/turnover ratio to other top notch PGs of yesteryear and I wouldn't imagine that much of a difference in this statistic; but Jennings, overall, may be one of the premier PG's of that list thus far from the standpoint of his rookie season.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Finally my criticisms are justified!!! Kitty and the regular posters here will tell you guys, I said right away it's Brandon Jennings or bust. I WANTED JENNINGS OVER STEPHEN CURRY!! I said that from the beginning too. Geeze, this just shows I can do Donnie's job better then he can. We had a huge need, and failed to meet it.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

knicksfan said:


> Finally my criticisms are justified!!! Kitty and the regular posters here will tell you guys, I said right away it's Brandon Jennings or bust. I WANTED JENNINGS OVER STEPHEN CURRY!! I said that from the beginning too. Geeze, this just shows I can do Donnie's job better then he can. We had a huge need, and failed to meet it.


you're not alone. any half sane person would have picked jennings at that point, give the knick's needs.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

I was almost sure we wouldn't draft a forward

chandler
harrington
lee
jeffries
danillo

plus jordan hill? lol. meanwhile no one wanted nate, duhon burnt out the year prior, and we had not drafted toney douglas at the moment


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

If he was in New York that 2010 **** would be in overdrive...for good reason..


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

personally i have always been against this 2010 plan....but if you are gonna do it , do it right , in that case hill was the right call, this team needs capable starter level defenders standouts if possible, which jennings may alwas have physical limitations, ...my beef over jennings is that walsh failed to do his research and he admitted as much...maybe if he saw him he would have drafted him to deal for a better talent than hill...or at least more polished...


----------

