The Official Michael Kidd-Gilchrist Thread

[SJackson1]

1) I wouldn't categorize Gerald Wallace as one of the best SF in the league.

2) Everyone is talking about the risks with taking Barnes but what about the risks with MKG? What if he never develops that offensive versatility that we desperately need? Do you really want to use the #2 pick in the draft to acquire a defensive specialist that can only score in transition? We need more then someone with a "winner's mentality". We need someone who's has the skills to go out there and do it no matter the mentality. If we want to go safe, we go Robinson. If we want to go risk/reward. We go Barnes. MKG is just not for us.

why isn't MKG for us ?

he will develop his offensive game but its just his jump shot he needs to improve becasue he his great at attacking the rim and finishing

[dnbman]

1) I wouldn't categorize Gerald Wallace as one of the best SF in the league.

There were a few seasons where Wallace was considered a top 5 SF in the league. Had he not been buried on the King's bench is first few years in the league, he probably would have had a more noteworthy career. Of course, playing for the Bobcats, the league doormat, didn't help. The last year or two have not been great for Wallace, but he's still been productive. He's still probably a top 10 SF in the league.

2) Everyone is talking about the risks with taking Barnes but what about the risks with MKG? What if he never develops that offensive versatility that we desperately need? Do you really want to use the #2 pick in the draft to acquire a defensive specialist that can only score in transition? We need more then someone with a "winner's mentality". We need someone who's has the skills to go out there and do it no matter the mentality. If we want to go safe, we go Robinson. If we want to go risk/reward. We go Barnes. MKG is just not for us.

That's a good point, but consider this: if Barnes doesn't develop a handle and a better attacking game, he becomes a shooting specialist. If MKG doesn't develop a shot, he still could be an all NBA defender that still gives you buckets off transition and hustle.

I still don't know which one I'd want, but I'm still leaning towards MKG.

[Whiz Kid]

why isn't MKG for us ?

he will develop his offensive game but its just his jump shot he needs to improve becasue he his great at attacking the rim and finishing

My take is, IF we are drafting a SF, instead of having a complete offensive project, why don't we take Barnes, who has the offense, and just develop him? Our staff can develop Barnes much quicker and he'd be ready to contribute offensively much sooner plus he can also develop to be a solid defender. Why take on the bigger project?

[SJackson1]

My take is, IF we are drafting a SF, instead of having a complete offensive project, why don't we take Barnes, who has the offense, and just develop him? Our staff can develop Barnes much quicker and he'd be ready to contribute offensively much sooner plus he can also develop to be a solid defender. Why take on the bigger project?

becasue MKG has the better all round game and as dnbman pointed out he has potential to be an NBA all defender. Barnes has a jump shot but not much else to be honest

[Whiz Kid]

There were a few seasons where Wallace was considered a top 5 SF in the league. Had he not been buried on the King's bench is first few years in the league, he probably would have had a more noteworthy career. Of course, playing for the Bobcats, the league doormat, didn't help. The last year or two have not been great for Wallace, but he's still been productive. He's still probably a top 10 SF in the league.



That's a good point, but consider this: if Barnes doesn't develop a handle and a better attacking game, he becomes a shooting specialist. If MKG doesn't develop a shot, he still could be an all NBA defender that still gives you buckets off transition and hustle.

I still don't know which one I'd want, but I'm still leaning towards MKG.

I definitely see your point on the Barnes-shooting specialist and MKG-defensive specialist. But Barnes is also already an average-solid defender. I'm not saying he's great but he's good enough to get by and hold his own. Then who do you take?

[Whiz Kid]

becasue MKG has the better all round game and as dnbman pointed out he has potential to be an NBA all defender. Barnes has a jump shot but not much else to be honest

Barnes is an average-solid defender. I get that he's not on MKG's level defensively but its not like hes completely terrible. He's good enough to get by.

And if we're going by potential, Barnes has POTENTIAL to be a top scorer in the NBA. Please don't twist my words there.

[SJackson1]

I definitely see your point on the Barnes-shooting specialist and MKG-defensive specialist. But Barnes is also already an average-solid defender. I'm not saying he's great but he's good enough to get by and hold his own. Then who do you take?

MKG is great at attacking the rim and his finishing is very good. The only think im concerned about in MKG is the jump shot but with time and coaching he can learn and adapt

[dnbman]

My take is, IF we are drafting a SF, instead of having a complete offensive project, why don't we take Barnes, who has the offense, and just develop him? Our staff can develop Barnes much quicker and he'd be ready to contribute offensively much sooner plus he can also develop to be a solid defender. Why take on the bigger project?

I haven't read too many people calling MKG a project. The criticism is on his jumpshot, not his ability to score in general. And he can still hit jumpers, even if the form is ugly. He's just not that great.

Either guy seem like they could contribute from day 1. The question is boils down to what you want-- more offense or defense-- and what do you see as their likely career? I'm relying on professionals who have a lot more information and experience than us to make that decision.

[dnbman]

MKG is great at attacking the rim and his finishing is very good. The only think im concerned about in MKG is the jump shot but with time and coaching he can learn and adapt

I promise I'm not ripping your posts. I just keep finding myself posting some of the similar ideas about 30 seconds after you do!

[SJackson1]

I haven't read too many people calling MKG a project. The criticism is on his jumpshot, not his ability to score in general. And he can still hit jumpers, even if the form is ugly. He's just not that great.

Either guy seem like they could contribute from day 1. The question is boils down to what you want-- more offense or defense-- and what do you see as their likely career? I'm relying on professionals who have a lot more information and experience than us to make that decision.

couldn't agree more mate !