Breaking Down Danilo Gallinari's offensive game

MSGKnickz33 said:

I like Getrealistic but he might be the next Knicks126 and go find another forum to post on....thats assuming that theres no connection between JPZ and knicks126

Click to expand...

Well the fact that i don't automatically agree with everything certain posters say does hurtr my chances in your perserved KOL pecking order but i'm alright with that.

The true test will be when and if we add good players to this team. Then we will really see what D'Antoni and Galinari have, until then we can all sit back and speculate. But to compare players like Hibbert,Lopez, Lopez, and Thompson (all of which played atleast 3 years in college) and a full rookie season to a 21/22 year old coming off major back surgury is far from fair. Despite all those points Gallos Stats match up pretty well.

Thompson, Lopez, Lopez, and Thompson all shoot the majority of there shots inside the paint so i wouldn't compare their FG% to Gallo (didn't Eddy Curry have the best FG% in the league two years?). Also those guys play Center or PF so again of course they average more rebounds.

Lastly if Brook Lopez (who i think is a good player) was such a special player don't you think he'd be able to bring a talented team like the Nets to a better record then they have? I mean the Nets have talent and a player with Lopez "special ability" should atleast mean 30 wins.

abcd said:

Wilson Chandler was a late first round pick. Most people didn't even expect him to average 15 points per game, so your argument is very weak.

Danilo Gallinari was a top 8 lottery pick. A lot of people compared him to
Dirk Nowitzki and Andrea Bargnani, so the expectations were high for him.

However, he hasn't produced. Maybe he'll produce in the future, but he has not played up to par now.

And as for Rudy Fernandez being better than Wilson Chandler, where do you get that from? Fernandez shoots a woeful 39% from the field.

Click to expand...

Just pointing out the faulty logic you guys use to argue that Gallo sucks.

Player A was drafted after player B and Player A is better than player B, therefore Player A is a complete bust and I hate him.

Find another reason to hate Gallo.

Or just admit the truth. You don't like D'Antoni so therefore you don't like Gallo. It's as simple as that and consistent with everyone on here.

And how come all you Lopez guys never answer the question as to why a much more talented Nets team with Lopez is much worse than the Knicks?

I am not arguing that Gallo is a great player but to give him a fair chance to be evaluated. Calling Gallo a bust in essentially his first year is premature.

You have to admit, Gallo shows signs of being a very good player. And just because he was drafted 6th overall doesn't preclude him being a franchise talent.

He has bad games and looks terrible sometimes as well. If these consistencies continue next year and the following year, I will agree with you.

And none of you Gallo haters, I REPEAT, NONE OF YOU GALLO HATERS, can honestly say with the utmost conviction that he is a bust. None of you can evaluate talent to that extent, NONE OF YOU!!

So get over yourselves and just admit you don't like him because you don't like D'Antoni. It's not based on your analysis of his game but your hate for our coach. Fact. Otherwise, you would be waiting to see how he develops before you made up your mind, like most objective and logical people.

OGKnickfan said:

Okay, so you do not subscribe to either camp, because of this one post? How about every other post that you made in support of Gallo as a rookie and as an NBA-ready European pro? I have never seen a person backpedal that fast.

Click to expand...

Link me to a post where I said Gallo was an NBA-ready European pro? Got none? Thought so...

I have made several posts expressing my concern that he's a 21-year-old with back problems...I just don't see any real point in giving up on him...

I have said in the past that I thought, for all intents and purposes, he is a rookie...but I think the argument makes sense against it, I'm back on the fence. Unlike you, I'm not afraid to admit someone has an argument. But both sides have flaws...I really don't think any comparison to one draft class is any fairer than comparison to another class. I think the better analytical decision is to look at player like Gallo who have played professionally in Europe and grew up playing in European basketball camps and then came over...their experiences are closer to Gallinari's.

OGKnickfan said:

No matter what your personal opinion is, when it comes to whether Gallo is a rookie or sophomore, the argument that Gallo was playing at a higher level of competition, than NCAA players, during his years in Italy, nullifies any experience argument you or anyone else poses.

Click to expand...

Again, find me a post where I said that he was playing at a higher level of competition in the European league? I have said over and over that the pace is less fast in Europe and the schedule less demanding, which could factor into a lot of European players' slow development...

I don't know where you are pulling these arguments from, but they aren't going to be attributed to me. I never made them...

From the day Gallinari was drafted I have been one of his biggest supporters on this site, even after just playing in 28 games last season I knew he would be a good pro. He was actually my first and only choice for the 2008 draft. I always felt he wasn't a savior but someone that makes others better and he has shown that in his first two seasons he reminds me a lot of Tony Kukoc. However I do have my concerns about him:

1) After watching more and more from him this season I still feel he hasn't recovered from this back injury.

2) There is absolutely no lift or power in his drives to basket.

3) He still not able to post up 6'3 players in the paint. This is very frustrating to see a 6'11 guy getting slapped around when he goes inside by smaller players.

4) He actually looked better last year, more poise and stable in his movements. This year he just looks horrible and can't finish to save his life at the basket.

I want Gallinari to succeed so bad and I will root for him and still feel he can become a great role player to us, but I just don't think the sky and his reach is that high as some in this site see in him.

Lets go Knicks, can't wait for the 2010-2011 season!

Gallinari isn't a bad player...

he's just a bad pick.

Aint no arguing that!

He's not a difference maker, and I can't trust him with the ball in his hands period.

showing flashes is one thing, but if I draft a guy @ 8...

I should be able to trust him with the rock. I can't trust Gallo...

Too inconsistent.

I am glad you guys are pointing out the obvious to the "Viagra Crew" trying to talk the "Cock" up. GALLO IS NOT A ROOKIE. HE WAS ACTUALLY PAID TO PLAY BALL IN ITALY. THAT MAKES HIM A PRO. You cannot have it both ways "Viagra Crew". When anybody with a brain told you that 6'11" barely 200 soaking wet was gonna have trouble in the NBA, you told us "Gallo is already a pro(in Europe)." Now that he is struggling(like we told you he would), now all of a sudden "give him time, he is a rookie." Now which one is it???? Y'all can back up like 8 legged crawdads if you want to, but I can dig up the posts for everybody to see. Remember Metrosexual: Euroleague>>>>>>>>> NCAA, and some bogus quote from Kobe "Euroleague is more physical than the NBA," but then they send us some 6'10", barely 200 pound soaking wet, donut that has no post game and heaves up multiple 25 foot bricks every night.

He's not a bust...But, he's not athletic, his back will probably prevent him from getting more athletic.

His lack of athleticism hurts him, because he can't make mistakes....he supposedly has high IQ but he is adjusting still from Euro League, so until he figures out the speed/space of the NBA game he's not a very good player. Add up this factors with a coach who i think is not very good and has gotten totally exposed, and I think you have the making of a player who will never reach his potential.

To be honest i hate D'antoni way more than Gallo....Gallo career might be ruined in my opinion because of D. Gallo wasn't a bad pick....but i don't think he is going to pan out now.

Really i think Gallos development is more of a indictment on Mike D"Antoni....why did certain players play so much Iso.

Regardless of whether D'Antoni lets his players just play out there, if it was hurting the development of the future he has the ability to bench a person...

LJ4ptplay said:

Just pointing out the faulty logic you guys use to argue that Gallo sucks.

Player A was drafted after player B and Player A is better than player B, therefore Player A is a complete bust and I hate him.

Find another reason to hate Gallo.

Or just admit the truth. You don't like D'Antoni so therefore you don't like Gallo. It's as simple as that and consistent with everyone on here.

And how come all you Lopez guys never answer the question as to why a much more talented Nets team with Lopez is much worse than the Knicks?

I am not arguing that Gallo is a great player but to give him a fair chance to be evaluated. Calling Gallo a bust in essentially his first year is premature.

You have to admit, Gallo shows signs of being a very good player. And just because he was drafted 6th overall doesn't preclude him being a franchise talent.

He has bad games and looks terrible sometimes as well. If these consistencies continue next year and the following year, I will agree with you.

And none of you Gallo haters, I REPEAT, NONE OF YOU GALLO HATERS, can honestly say with the utmost conviction that he is a bust. None of you can evaluate talent to that extent, NONE OF YOU!!

So get over yourselves and just admit you don't like him because you don't like D'Antoni. It's not based on your analysis of his game but your hate for our coach. Fact. Otherwise, you would be waiting to see how he develops before you made up your mind, like most objective and logical people.

Click to expand...

My dislike for Mike D'Antoni has nothing to do with Gallinari.

If Gallinari was averaging the 14 points he's averaging on 46% shooting and 6 rebounds and a block, with some post up moves and mid-range shots, then I would support him. But since all he's doing is hoisting up 3s, rarely going to the basket, not rebounding, and not blocking as many shots as a 6'10 top 8 lottery pick should, then he doesn't have my support.

lol at you claiming that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks. Yes, I agree that the Nets have a brighter future, because they have a top 3 lottery pick, enough cap space to sign 1 max free agent and one good role player, and they have Devin Harris and Brook Lopez, but this team was injury depleted and is currently talent depleted.

Yi Jianlian, the Nets' starting powerforward is a complete bum. He shoots 39% from the field, depsite being 7 foot tall.

Chris Douglas-Roberts completely broke down and is now playing like a mediocore role player. Al Harrington is better than Chris Douglas-Roberts and Jarvis Hayes.

Devin Harris has had injuries for almost the entire season.

Courtney Lee is nothing more than a role player. Both Gallinari and Wilson Chandler average more points and rebounds than him.

Kris Humphries wouldn't even be in 90% of the NBA's rotations. David Lee is better than every frontcourt player on the Nets, except Lopez.

Brook Lopez is an All Star level talent surrounded by role players and quality players that had multiple injuries.

Patrick Ewing is a 50 greatest player, 2x Eastern Conference Champion, and had just 23 wins on his rookie season and 24 wins as a sophomore.

Basketball is a team sport. You can't fault one player for why an entire team loses.

I think Gallinari is a bust. You don't have to suck to be a bust. You just have to underperform and be drafted ahead of several players who were better than you. Brook Lopez, Eric Gordon, Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, Robin Lopez, and Roy Hibbert are all currently better than Gallinari, so it can be argued that he's a bust.

Do I think Gallinari is a good role player? Yes, but you shouldn't be looking to draft good role players with the #6 pick. You should be looking for players who can make an immediate impact. Brook Lopez would have made an immediate impact and is currently making an immediate impact as we speak. The other 5 players I mentioned are still developing their games but are rebounding more and blocking more shots in fewer minutes than Gallinari and are shooting better percentages.

Gordon is averaging more points and assists and is shooting a better percentage.

clumsy said:

He's not a bust...But, he's not athletic, his back will probably prevent him from getting more athletic.

His lack of athleticism hurts him, because he can't make mistakes....he supposedly has high IQ but he is adjusting still from Euro League, so until he figures out the speed/space of the NBA game he's not a very good player. Add up this factors with a coach who i think is not very good and has gotten totally exposed, and I think you have the making of a player who will never reach his potential.

To be honest i hate D'antoni way more than Gallo....Gallo career might be ruined in my opinion because of D. Gallo wasn't a bad pick....but i don't think he is going to pan out now.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

I mean when was the last time a White, non-athletic, euroleager was a difference maker?

Dirk perhaps? But he seems the exception to the rule.

You can't teach athleticism. His lack of speed, explosiveness, leaping ability is exactly why a NCAA player would've been better.

Hypercrits are hoping he develops such an I.Q. and knock down shot to overcome this diffeciency, ala Larry Bird.

Newsflash...

that was 20 motherf*cking years ago! The game has evolved such that athleticsm is a must- the moves and shot can be coached not speed.

LJ4ptplay said:

And how come all you Lopez guys never answer the question as to why a much more talented Nets team with Lopez is much worse than the Knicks?

Click to expand...

OGKnickfan said:

#3. Your argument that Brook's accomplishments are nullified by his team's record is proven wrong by the addendum you include, in which you state that he has a better team. He has Devin Harris, who has missed many games due to injury. Every other player on the roster: Humphries, Terence Williams, Douglas-Roberts, Yi (especially), is inexperienced and would normally not even break an NBA team's rotation.

Gallo, meanwhile, has many players that, even if some are washed up, are still experienced enough (Hughes, Harrington, Robinson, Lee, etc.) to provide him more help than what Lopez's teammates can provide him.

Click to expand...

I have answered this several times, which includes, if you care to scroll back, a reply on this thread (re-posted here). You, and some others, have raised this argument, but it seems you do not read the strong rebuttals to it: namely, Lopez has some of the most inexperienced, injured group of players around him.

Oh, and if you are going to attribute the Nets' performance to Lopez, and not the entire team, you should, at the least, not exclude Gallinari from blame, when the Knicks lose (a common practice among those of your ilk).

abcd said:

My dislike for Mike D'Antoni has nothing to do with Gallinari.

If Gallinari was averaging the 14 points he's averaging on 46% shooting and 6 rebounds and a block, with some post up moves and mid-range shots, then I would support him. But since all he's doing is hoisting up 3s, rarely going to the basket, not rebounding, and not blocking as many shots as a 6'10 top 8 lottery pick should, then he doesn't have my support.

lol at you claiming that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks. Yes, I agree that the Nets have a brighter future, because they have a top 3 lottery pick, enough cap space to sign 1 max free agent and one good role player, and they have Devin Harris and Brook Lopez, but this team was injury depleted and is currently talent depleted.

Yi Jianlian, the Nets' starting powerforward is a complete bum. He shoots 39% from the field, depsite being 7 foot tall.

Chris Douglas-Roberts completely broke down and is now playing like a mediocore role player. Al Harrington is better than Chris Douglas-Roberts and Jarvis Hayes.

Devin Harris has had injuries for almost the entire season.

Courtney Lee is nothing more than a role player. Both Gallinari and Wilson Chandler average more points and rebounds than him.

Kris Humphries wouldn't even be in 90% of the NBA's rotations. David Lee is better than every frontcourt player on the Nets, except Lopez.

Brook Lopez is an All Star level talent surrounded by role players and quality players that had multiple injuries.

Patrick Ewing is a 50 greatest player, 2x Eastern Conference Champion, and had just 23 wins on his rookie season and 24 wins as a sophomore.

Basketball is a team sport. You can't fault one player for why an entire team loses.

I think Gallinari is a bust. You don't have to suck to be a bust. You just have to underperform and be drafted ahead of several players who were better than you. Brook Lopez, Eric Gordon, Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, Robin Lopez, and Roy Hibbert are all currently better than Gallinari, so it can be argued that he's a bust.

Do I think Gallinari is a good role player? Yes, but you shouldn't be looking to draft good role players with the #6 pick. You should be looking for players who can make an immediate impact. Brook Lopez would have made an immediate impact and is currently making an immediate impact as we speak. The other 5 players I mentioned are still developing their games but are rebounding more and blocking more shots in fewer minutes than Gallinari and are shooting better percentages.

Gordon is averaging more points and assists and is shooting a better percentage.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the Nets are more talented than the Knicks and if we had that roster instead of ours, we would have a few more wins than we currently have.

Wait, you think Jason Thompson, Anthony Randolph, Robin Lopez, and Roy Hibbert are currently better than Gallo!?! Ha! That's funny.

And how many of those players are small forwards? Sometimes both height and skill set determine a player's position. Just because he's 6'10", doesn't make him a PF. He's been playing SF for the majority of this season. His numbers for a first year SF are not bad, especially one coming from Europe. Many European players take a year or two before they develop into good players. And he has shown other aspects of his game other than hoisting up 3-pointers. You must not watch many games.

So essentially you guys believe that a #6 pick, regardless of any circumstances, should be immediately contributing at a high level right away, or else he's a bust.

Everything you see in Gallo's game, or lack of, can not be developed in the future and what we see now is what he will be for his entire career.

And this is where we disagree. I see some promising aspects of Gallo's game and skill set. Skills that could make him a very good player that could potentially lead to many mis-matches in his favor. I still have hope that he can develop into a very good player for the Knicks.

14pts, 5 rebs, .8 blk, 43% shooting is bad for a 1st year SF? Huh. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. There are many players (especially European) that have had worse starts to their careers and turned out to be great players. But I guess he has no chance at developing and will always be a bad player. Oh well, we might as well give up on him then.

And as I have said before, if his inconsistencies continue, then I will agree with you. It's just that I haven't given up on him yet.

And the fact that everybody that is so quick to give up on him is also calling for D'antoni to be fired, seems a little too coincidental to me.

LJ4ptplay said:

I disagree...
And how many of those players are small forwards? Sometimes both height and skill set determine a player's position. Just because he's 6'10", doesn't make him a PF. He's been playing SF for the majority of this season. His numbers for a first year SF are not bad, especially one coming from Europe. Many European players take a year or two before they develop into good players. And he has shown other aspects of his game other than hoisting up 3-pointers. You must not watch many games.

So essentially you guys believe that a #6 pick, regardless of any circumstances, should be immediately contributing at a high level right away, or else he's a bust.

Everything you see in Gallo's game, or lack of, can not be developed in the future and what we see now is what he will be for his entire career.

And this is where we disagree. I see some promising aspects of Gallo's game and skill set. Skills that could make him a very good player that could potentially lead to many mis-matches in his favor. I still have hope that he can develop into a very good player for the Knicks.


14pts, 5 rebs, .8 blk, 43% shooting is bad for a 1st year SF? Huh. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. There are many players (especially European) that have had worse starts to their careers and turned out to be great players. But I guess he has no chance at developing and will always be a bad player.

Click to expand...

He's not a first year player as ALREADY addressed in this thread.

You just admitted he's a bad player in your post (see above)...

yet you argue and disagree. Add he's a SF and the FA's available and that fact UNDERSCORES why he ws not the best pick we could've made.

Sans Dirk and Ginobli, who in their right mind would think a non-athletic, Euro player would be a difference maker?

Isn't that what we needed- a difference maker. Not a limited project.

Red said:

He's not a first year player as ALREADY addressed in this thread.

Click to expand...

Geez. Barely. 25 injured games barely seems like experience to me. You are just being argumentative for argument's sake on this one. You know, and everybody else knows the point. He doesn't have much experience and any rational person would take this into account before labeling a guy a complete bust and giving up on him.

Red said:

You just admitted he's a bad player in your post (see above)...

Click to expand...

I think you didn't quite get the sarcasm implied in my post. Please show me where I said he is a bad player. He has inconsistencies but I never said he was a bad player. I think he is a good player that has much room for improvement. There is a huge difference.

Red said:

Sans Dirk and Ginobli, who in their right mind would think a non-athletic, Euro player would be a difference maker?

Isn't that what we needed- a difference maker. Not a limited project.

Click to expand...

What we needed has nothing to do with my argument. See previous posts. Calling him a bust and giving up on him because you think we could have made a better draft choice does not make any sense.

Like I said, when we drafted Chandler, we didn't need a player of his skill set and position. We still needed a shooter and a shot-blocker. Many players that were drafted after Chandler addressed those needs and are currently much better players than Chandler.

So, if I apply your logic to Chandler, I should give up on Chandler. Doesn't make sense?

Like I said, all of this hate seems too coincidental to me. Unless you guys think everybody drafted in this year's lottery not named Steph Curry, Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings is a complete bust. Do you?

LJ you are missing everybodies point. Your "cocklove" is blinding you. GALLO WAS ALREADY A PRO BEFORE HE WAS DRAFTED BY THE KNICKS. Remember he was an Italian league all-star and 3 point champ and all that. That means he is not a rookie. Its not unlike a highly recuited frosh that comes into a big NCAA program. They have been playing AAU ball since they were 10 and ESPN does high-school coverage(Mcdonald game and skills challange was on last night) so the kids come in ready to play even as "freshman" because they are used to the spotlight.

And to say draft picks shouldn't be compared to thier contemporaries is also ridiculous. NBA people are still talking about the GM's that passed on MJ as a cautionary tale. The point is Gallo was a LOTTERY PICK, and that comes with expectations. And he wasn't some 17 year old project from the projects either. This was supposed to be a polished Euro-pro. I told Metrosexual, Gallo would be a project at best, and I got argued down and called all kinda names. So again I'm asking the "COCKLOVER CREW": WHICH ONE IS IT?????

jimkcchief88 said:

LJ you are missing everybodies point. Your "cocklove" is blinding you. GALLO WAS ALREADY A PRO BEFORE HE WAS DRAFTED BY THE KNICKS. Remember he was an Italian league all-star and 3 point champ and all that. That means he is not a rookie. Its not unlike a highly recuited frosh that comes into a big NCAA program. They have been playing AAU ball since they were 10 and ESPN does high-school coverage(Mcdonald game and skills challange was on last night) so the kids come in ready to play even as "freshman" because they are used to the spotlight.

And to say draft picks shouldn't be compared to thier contemporaries is also ridiculous. NBA people are still talking about the GM's that passed on MJ as a cautionary tale. The point is Gallo was a LOTTERY PICK, and that comes with expectations. And he wasn't some 17 year old project from the projects either. This was supposed to be a polished Euro-pro. I told Metrosexual, Gallo would be a project at best, and I got argued down and called all kinda names. So again I'm asking the "COCKLOVER CREW": WHICH ONE IS IT?????

Click to expand...

So you think all Euro players coming into the league should be contributing at a high level immediately?

So you think everybody drafted in this year's lottery not named Steph Curry, Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings are complete busts?

And I'm not saying that draft picks shouldn't be compared. I'm saying giving up on Gallo and calling him a complete bust because who was drafted after him is ridiculous.

Gallinari is choking on his own arrogance. He began to be a prima donna, when he put forth the threat that, if he were not selected by the team his dad's friend, Mike D'Antoni, coaches: the Knicks, he would return to Milano.

His latest show of arrogance involves a challenge to the league's most talented players. He has proclaimed that, from now on, he will be guarding all of our opponents' best players. And what happens to him, as a result? He gets burned, every night.

Last night, he could not even hit the side of a barn. He only got to three of nine, from the field, because of a loose ball that fell in his proverbial lap, which he was able to lay up, with no one around him.

And, if you really want to claim, LJ4PTPLAY, that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks, provide something deeper than, "I disagree. I think the Nets are more talented than the Knicks and if we had that roster instead of ours, we would have a few more wins than we currently have."

David Lee is better than everyone on the Nets, except for Lopez. Gallo is better than everyone on the Nets, except for Lopez and Harris. Harrington is better than everyone on that team, except for Lopez. When Nate was on the team, he was better than everyone on the Nets, except for Lopez and Harris (although offensively, Nate was matching him). Chandler is better than every Net, except for Lopez and maybe Harris.

These are five players that, statistically, and otherwise, are more experienced and talented than the majority of the Nets. If you disagree, post some statistics that prove me wrong. Tell me how Humphries is better than Lee, or how Douglas-Roberts is better than Harrington. You cannot, because your argument is not based on the truth.

OG we know your opinion. Do we really need to bring up that thread again? lol. You don't like Gallo the person. You hate him as a person. you personally don't want him on the Knicks and think he shouldn't be allowed in the NBA. You root against him. So therefore, your analysis of his skills is biased.

I don't need to show stats on a team that has one of the worst records in NBA history. I think stats are useless for that argument. Yes, it's my opinion that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks. Plain and simple.

And why are you arguing this anyway? Who the f*ck cares? Does this really need to turn into a Nets/Knicks debate? No. Ive already stated how the Lopez argument for calling Gallo a complete bust and giving up on him is ridiculous.

You know my inentions. You're just trying to claim anything a victory to justify the real reason why you don't want Gallo.

LJ4ptplay said:

OG we know your opinion. Do we really need to bring up that thread again? lol. You don't like Gallo the person. You hate him as a person. you personally don't want him on the Knicks and think he shouldn't be allowed in the NBA. You root against him. So therefore, your analysis of his skills is biased.

I don't need to show stats on a team that has one of the worst records in NBA history. I think stats are useless for that argument. Yes, it's my opinion that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks. Plain and simple.

And why are you arguing this anyway? Who the f*ck cares? Does this really need to turn into a Nets/Knicks debate? No. Ive already stated how the Lopez argument for calling Gallo a complete bust and giving up on him is ridiculous.

You know my inentions. You're just trying to claim anything a victory to justify the real reason why you don't want Gallo.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ: my intentions are to have you use logic to defend your point, not to merely win for the sake of winning. I will assume, based on your reply, that you cannot do that.

Again, if I am wrong, post substantive data to support your assertion that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks, thus nullifying Lopez's achievements over those of Gallinari, in this '09-'10 NBA season. While you are at it (using your same line of thinking), please tell us why the Knicks stink, while at the same time starting Gallo, i.e., Nowitzki's basketball clone.

OGKnickfan said:

I beg to differ: my intentions are to have you use logic to defend your point, not to merely win for the sake of winning. I will assume, based on your reply, that you cannot do that.

Again, if I am wrong, post substantive data to support your assertion that the Nets have more talent than the Knicks, in this '09-'10 NBA season.

Click to expand...

Then why are you arguing that the Nets are worse than the Knicks?