Is it possible that Monk is another Rose? He is popular around here, but is a combo guard with no wingspan

Weaknesses: Certainly best as a scoring guard, though at around 6’3 with a 6’6 wingspan, definitely would be considered undersized and could struggle defending bigger guards … While some have referred to him as a combo guard, he is not particularly comfortable setting up the offense and does not really show the vision of a primary handler … Can be a bit loose with his handle and decision making, not entirely comfortable beyond a few dribbles creating for himself … Low FT rate, while he scores from all three levels does not get to the basket often enough and can be thrown off by contact … Has struggled defending at the point of attack and on-ball, one might not be sure how versatile he is as a defender … Low steal and block rates, as well as surprisingly low rebound rate given his explosive athleticism … Has not shown much ability in the pick-and-roll, once again leading to questions about his translating to a lead guard … Seems to be heavily reliant on his shooting at this point, which leads to questions about what he brings to the table if his shot is not falling … Has not been asked to do much off of the cut, which one might think he would be more involved in given his athletic gifts … Very little of his scoring has happened close to the basket off of the dribble, has needed someone to create those opportunities for him ... As great as he has proven to be as a shooter in his freshman year, he was just an average shooter throughout his high school career, adding some skepticism about his incredible shooting accuracy at Kentucky ...

Despite the fact that his shooting is not as good as Monk's, of the 2 KU kids, I would look at Fox if both are available, because of his ability to defend and a more natural tendency to be a distributor.

Would also like to see more on Frank Ntilikina, who I have mentioned before. Right now NBADraft.net has us taking him. His shooting seems to have improved, but he does need more beef on him. My natural tendency is to go for foreign talent, because I believe they understand team ball better than many of U.S. players of the same age.

DraftExpress has us taking Lauri Markkanen, who is an interesting player, but would seem redundant for us now, unless he has the ability to be a 3 down the road, which does not seem possible from what I've read.

We should get a good player whenever we draft, but I see defensive ability as a priority, especially if we draft a PG, SG, or SF.

WaltLongmire wrote:Just a concern...any PG or SF we pick HAS to be able to play D, and a PG, or course, has be able to distribute.

Is it possible that Monk is another Rose? He is popular around here, but is a combo guard with no wingspan

Weaknesses: Certainly best as a scoring guard, though at around 6’3 with a 6’6 wingspan, definitely would be considered undersized and could struggle defending bigger guards … While some have referred to him as a combo guard, he is not particularly comfortable setting up the offense and does not really show the vision of a primary handler … Can be a bit loose with his handle and decision making, not entirely comfortable beyond a few dribbles creating for himself … Low FT rate, while he scores from all three levels does not get to the basket often enough and can be thrown off by contact … Has struggled defending at the point of attack and on-ball, one might not be sure how versatile he is as a defender … Low steal and block rates, as well as surprisingly low rebound rate given his explosive athleticism … Has not shown much ability in the pick-and-roll, once again leading to questions about his translating to a lead guard … Seems to be heavily reliant on his shooting at this point, which leads to questions about what he brings to the table if his shot is not falling … Has not been asked to do much off of the cut, which one might think he would be more involved in given his athletic gifts … Very little of his scoring has happened close to the basket off of the dribble, has needed someone to create those opportunities for him ... As great as he has proven to be as a shooter in his freshman year, he was just an average shooter throughout his high school career, adding some skepticism about his incredible shooting accuracy at Kentucky ...

Despite the fact that his shooting is not as good as Monk's, of the 2 KU kids, I would look at Fox if both are available, because of his ability to defend and a more natural tendency to be a distributor.

Would also like to see more on Frank Ntilikina, who I have mentioned before. Right now NBADraft.net has us taking him. His shooting seems to have improved, but he does need more beef on him. My natural tendency is to go for foreign talent, because I believe they understand team ball better than many of U.S. players of the same age.

DraftExpress has us taking Lauri Markkanen, who is an interesting player, but would seem redundant for us now, unless he has the ability to be a 3 down the road, which does not seem possible from what I've read.

We should get a good player whenever we draft, but I see defensive ability as a priority, especially if we draft a PG, SG, or SF.

Monk will be better than Rose. Monk can really shoot it. Even if he doesn't become a great defender, he can be similar to McCollum or Beal, neither of which are good defenders, but can light it up. I would be more concerned with D Smith becoming like Rose. As for Ntilikina, i tend to think he is still the likely choice. He is a great defender, can play 2 positions, and has clearly become a good outside shooter. You don't shoot 40% from 3pt if you aren't above average in that area. He is also the closest thing to a triangle guard as you will ever find. If he were playing the NCAA, he would be in the mix with the rest of the top 5-6 most likely. Then again, he will still be 18 by the time of the draft. If he were in the US, he might still be a high school senior. So his upside is clearly there, it might just take him a little longer, but he has transferable skills on both sides of the ball.

BRIGGS wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Just a concern...any PG or SF we pick HAS to be able to play D, and a PG, or course, has be able to distribute.

Is it possible that Monk is another Rose? He is popular around here, but is a combo guard with no wingspan

Weaknesses: Certainly best as a scoring guard, though at around 6’3 with a 6’6 wingspan, definitely would be considered undersized and could struggle defending bigger guards … While some have referred to him as a combo guard, he is not particularly comfortable setting up the offense and does not really show the vision of a primary handler … Can be a bit loose with his handle and decision making, not entirely comfortable beyond a few dribbles creating for himself … Low FT rate, while he scores from all three levels does not get to the basket often enough and can be thrown off by contact … Has struggled defending at the point of attack and on-ball, one might not be sure how versatile he is as a defender … Low steal and block rates, as well as surprisingly low rebound rate given his explosive athleticism … Has not shown much ability in the pick-and-roll, once again leading to questions about his translating to a lead guard … Seems to be heavily reliant on his shooting at this point, which leads to questions about what he brings to the table if his shot is not falling … Has not been asked to do much off of the cut, which one might think he would be more involved in given his athletic gifts … Very little of his scoring has happened close to the basket off of the dribble, has needed someone to create those opportunities for him ... As great as he has proven to be as a shooter in his freshman year, he was just an average shooter throughout his high school career, adding some skepticism about his incredible shooting accuracy at Kentucky ...

Despite the fact that his shooting is not as good as Monk's, of the 2 KU kids, I would look at Fox if both are available, because of his ability to defend and a more natural tendency to be a distributor.

Would also like to see more on Frank Ntilikina, who I have mentioned before. Right now NBADraft.net has us taking him. His shooting seems to have improved, but he does need more beef on him. My natural tendency is to go for foreign talent, because I believe they understand team ball better than many of U.S. players of the same age.

DraftExpress has us taking Lauri Markkanen, who is an interesting player, but would seem redundant for us now, unless he has the ability to be a 3 down the road, which does not seem possible from what I've read.

We should get a good player whenever we draft, but I see defensive ability as a priority, especially if we draft a PG, SG, or SF.

I look at big body athletes as a priority. That would eliminate many of these guys. I dont want an undersized or skinny player--only Fox as a potential exception. The foreign PG looks like project--no way can we do that and hes the skinniest guy in the draft! We have to defend big players and you cant do that with 170 pound guys.

Briggs he's only 18 years old. And he has a near 7'0 wingspan. It will take time to fill out. Length is probably more important than big body. There aren't a lot of muscular guards in the league. Skinny guys translate just fine.

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Just a concern...any PG or SF we pick HAS to be able to play D, and a PG, or course, has be able to distribute.

Is it possible that Monk is another Rose? He is popular around here, but is a combo guard with no wingspan

Weaknesses: Certainly best as a scoring guard, though at around 6’3 with a 6’6 wingspan, definitely would be considered undersized and could struggle defending bigger guards … While some have referred to him as a combo guard, he is not particularly comfortable setting up the offense and does not really show the vision of a primary handler … Can be a bit loose with his handle and decision making, not entirely comfortable beyond a few dribbles creating for himself … Low FT rate, while he scores from all three levels does not get to the basket often enough and can be thrown off by contact … Has struggled defending at the point of attack and on-ball, one might not be sure how versatile he is as a defender … Low steal and block rates, as well as surprisingly low rebound rate given his explosive athleticism … Has not shown much ability in the pick-and-roll, once again leading to questions about his translating to a lead guard … Seems to be heavily reliant on his shooting at this point, which leads to questions about what he brings to the table if his shot is not falling … Has not been asked to do much off of the cut, which one might think he would be more involved in given his athletic gifts … Very little of his scoring has happened close to the basket off of the dribble, has needed someone to create those opportunities for him ... As great as he has proven to be as a shooter in his freshman year, he was just an average shooter throughout his high school career, adding some skepticism about his incredible shooting accuracy at Kentucky ...

Despite the fact that his shooting is not as good as Monk's, of the 2 KU kids, I would look at Fox if both are available, because of his ability to defend and a more natural tendency to be a distributor.

Would also like to see more on Frank Ntilikina, who I have mentioned before. Right now NBADraft.net has us taking him. His shooting seems to have improved, but he does need more beef on him. My natural tendency is to go for foreign talent, because I believe they understand team ball better than many of U.S. players of the same age.

DraftExpress has us taking Lauri Markkanen, who is an interesting player, but would seem redundant for us now, unless he has the ability to be a 3 down the road, which does not seem possible from what I've read.

We should get a good player whenever we draft, but I see defensive ability as a priority, especially if we draft a PG, SG, or SF.

I look at big body athletes as a priority. That would eliminate many of these guys. I dont want an undersized or skinny player--only Fox as a potential exception. The foreign PG looks like project--no way can we do that and hes the skinniest guy in the draft! We have to defend big players and you cant do that with 170 pound guys.

Briggs he's only 18 years old. And he has a near 7'0 wingspan. It will take time to fill out. Length is probably more important than big body. There aren't a lot of muscular guards in the league. Skinny guys translate just fine.

My list of guys is pretty small excluding the top 5 which Ive already named

top of the 7 and below to 1`4 Miles Bridges and John Collins below 14 Semi Ojeyele(depending if we get bridges or not) Dillon Brooks Josh Hart and Zeek Woodley for our late 2. Each one of these guys are big athletic player who can play both ends. No one on my list weighs less than 215. Look at the Cavs--BIG athletic players all over the roster. were not competing with that team with 170 pound players

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Just a concern...any PG or SF we pick HAS to be able to play D, and a PG, or course, has be able to distribute.

Is it possible that Monk is another Rose? He is popular around here, but is a combo guard with no wingspan

Weaknesses: Certainly best as a scoring guard, though at around 6’3 with a 6’6 wingspan, definitely would be considered undersized and could struggle defending bigger guards … While some have referred to him as a combo guard, he is not particularly comfortable setting up the offense and does not really show the vision of a primary handler … Can be a bit loose with his handle and decision making, not entirely comfortable beyond a few dribbles creating for himself … Low FT rate, while he scores from all three levels does not get to the basket often enough and can be thrown off by contact … Has struggled defending at the point of attack and on-ball, one might not be sure how versatile he is as a defender … Low steal and block rates, as well as surprisingly low rebound rate given his explosive athleticism … Has not shown much ability in the pick-and-roll, once again leading to questions about his translating to a lead guard … Seems to be heavily reliant on his shooting at this point, which leads to questions about what he brings to the table if his shot is not falling … Has not been asked to do much off of the cut, which one might think he would be more involved in given his athletic gifts … Very little of his scoring has happened close to the basket off of the dribble, has needed someone to create those opportunities for him ... As great as he has proven to be as a shooter in his freshman year, he was just an average shooter throughout his high school career, adding some skepticism about his incredible shooting accuracy at Kentucky ...

Despite the fact that his shooting is not as good as Monk's, of the 2 KU kids, I would look at Fox if both are available, because of his ability to defend and a more natural tendency to be a distributor.

Would also like to see more on Frank Ntilikina, who I have mentioned before. Right now NBADraft.net has us taking him. His shooting seems to have improved, but he does need more beef on him. My natural tendency is to go for foreign talent, because I believe they understand team ball better than many of U.S. players of the same age.

DraftExpress has us taking Lauri Markkanen, who is an interesting player, but would seem redundant for us now, unless he has the ability to be a 3 down the road, which does not seem possible from what I've read.

We should get a good player whenever we draft, but I see defensive ability as a priority, especially if we draft a PG, SG, or SF.

I look at big body athletes as a priority. That would eliminate many of these guys. I dont want an undersized or skinny player--only Fox as a potential exception. The foreign PG looks like project--no way can we do that and hes the skinniest guy in the draft! We have to defend big players and you cant do that with 170 pound guys.

Briggs he's only 18 years old. And he has a near 7'0 wingspan. It will take time to fill out. Length is probably more important than big body. There aren't a lot of muscular guards in the league. Skinny guys translate just fine.

My list of guys is pretty small excluding the top 5 which Ive already named

top of the 7 and below to 1`4 Miles Bridges and John Collins below 14 Semi Ojeyele(depending if we get bridges or not) Dillon Brooks Josh Hart and Zeek Woodley for our late 2. Each one of these guys are big athletic player who can play both ends. No one on my list weighs less than 215. Look at the Cavs--BIG athletic players all over the roster. were not competing with that team with 170 pound players

How about golden state? Does Curry even weigh more than 170 now??? Look at Durant. Livingston? Klay? Cleveland has LeBron. You can't use their roster as a way to determine how to build a team. LeBron is the reason they are a contender, not how they are built.

reub wrote:Monk can be a dynamic force offensively for us (and right away). His shooting is spectacular, unlike Rose. This is so vital in today's game to spread the floor. Can he play enough defense for us to be a PG on our team though? If he can play defense he could be our best choice at PG.

Agreed. Shooting is a transferable skill. Very rarely do guys come to the league and suddenly forget how to shoot. I look for transferable skills. What is a guy really good at?

Ball: Great passer, playmaker
Fultz: Great scorer
Monk: Great shooter, scorer
Ntilikina: Great defender
Fox: Great playmaker, defender
Smith: ??? maybe great athlete? Not sure.
Tatum: ??? not sold on him either

I want guys who are great at at least one thing that translates to the NBA right away. It keeps their bust potential low.

WaltLongmire wrote:

reub wrote:Monk can be a dynamic force offensively for us (and right away). His shooting is spectacular, unlike Rose. This is so vital in today's game to spread the floor. Can he play enough defense for us to be a PG on our team though? If he can play defense he could be our best choice at PG.

Rose does not shoot from deep but he's been pretty darn good from everywhere else.

Why take a guy who's a tweener, might not be able to be a PG, and is not known as a perimeter defender?

One thing in his favor is that Phil has never been a big PG guy, but he is going to want a perimeter defender, at the very least IMO.

No D, no draftee, IMO.

I tend to believe Jackson will go for the Frenchman, while Hornachek will like Fox, but we will see.

I think Ntilikina is the most likely pick as well. It just makes too much sense.

reub wrote:I think that Frank is meant to be a Knick, and a good one. But with the way we've been playing we just might have a chance at Ball or Fultz too.

Ntilikina is just like KP was last year. The measurables are great but he's really young, skinny and untested like the rest of the NCAA kids. This is where our scouts really have to come through again. There is such a need for a SPECIAL player in the backcourt for this team. Ntilikina, Fox and Monk are right in range where we might end up.

And if the knicks think of monk as the primary PG, they will be disappointed. But he'd be a good fit next to another big ball-handling guard plus a ball-handling small forward in a triangle offense.

17 points , 10 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 blocks, 2 steals.

Hmm...