Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/espnsteinline/status/845314391734022145

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Right now
#1 Ball
#2 Jackson
#3 Fultz
#4 Tatum
#5 Smith
#6 Fox

I dont want to go below this. I know whod I pick at 7 and he is no G--hes a safe pick. But if we want a guard or F we need top 6 MINIMALLY.

I would go Monk over Smith. I like how Kentucky guards translate to the NBA and i think he will have more opprtunity to let loose when he can handle the ball more. Also, i can't think of any elite offensive players (as freshman) who failed in the nba. Maybe Beasley, but we know the reasons why. Otherwise, elite scoring players typically become elite offensively in the nba. There is so much more space in the NBA to operate.

1. Fultz
2. Ball
3. Jackson
4. Tatum
5. Monk
6. Fox
7. Ntilikina
8. Smith

Id take Smith over Monk--I thought Monk at one point was pick #1 but that has coold off. Id take Smith over Monk because he makes plays with the dribble--has a stronger NBA body much better passer defender
re bounder--Remember Smith was on a bad team--and while he can be wild---I think hes taylor made for the NBA.

I highlighted a key part though. You tend to swift your thoughts on players quickly based on a couple of games. You see what Monk can do. Just because he has cooled off doesn't mean he can't do it anymore. Just like Fox, i told you how good he can be, and you were so focused on his 3pt % saying there is no way we should draft him. Now he makes a couple of shots and his stock has risen in your mind. But the reality is, nothing has changed with Fox. He has been the same player all year. The only difference now is his 3pt attempts are going in at a slightly higher rate. It was easy to see his shooting would improve. If you once saw Monk as a possible #1 player, don't change your mind just because he has cooled off. Obviously the shooting/scoring ability hasn't changed. Players should not be judged on a few games, but on an entire body of work.

When you see a guy score 47 then 34 and hit 12-13 3's youre impression climbs very high. Kentucky has been on all year and over the last many games Ive seen the other side. Smallish player with only a good handle who doesnt rebound or pass very much . Ive called Smith wld here and its somewhat true--but hes also a better NBA prospect for US because hes a PG built stronger plays better D and rebounds. Hes better imho.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/845312130421182464

reub wrote:I saw Smith play one game this year and he didn't even try on defense. It was almost a joke.

I can say the same thing about Monk. D is gonna take a while for both. My question with Smith is how long can that style of play hold up over 82 game season. We already have a case study in Rose.

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Right now
#1 Ball
#2 Jackson
#3 Fultz
#4 Tatum
#5 Smith
#6 Fox

I dont want to go below this. I know whod I pick at 7 and he is no G--hes a safe pick. But if we want a guard or F we need top 6 MINIMALLY.

I would go Monk over Smith. I like how Kentucky guards translate to the NBA and i think he will have more opprtunity to let loose when he can handle the ball more. Also, i can't think of any elite offensive players (as freshman) who failed in the nba. Maybe Beasley, but we know the reasons why. Otherwise, elite scoring players typically become elite offensively in the nba. There is so much more space in the NBA to operate.

1. Fultz
2. Ball
3. Jackson
4. Tatum
5. Monk
6. Fox
7. Ntilikina
8. Smith

Id take Smith over Monk--I thought Monk at one point was pick #1 but that has coold off. Id take Smith over Monk because he makes plays with the dribble--has a stronger NBA body much better passer defender
re bounder--Remember Smith was on a bad team--and while he can be wild---I think hes taylor made for the NBA.

I highlighted a key part though. You tend to swift your thoughts on players quickly based on a couple of games. You see what Monk can do. Just because he has cooled off doesn't mean he can't do it anymore. Just like Fox, i told you how good he can be, and you were so focused on his 3pt % saying there is no way we should draft him. Now he makes a couple of shots and his stock has risen in your mind. But the reality is, nothing has changed with Fox. He has been the same player all year. The only difference now is his 3pt attempts are going in at a slightly higher rate. It was easy to see his shooting would improve. If you once saw Monk as a possible #1 player, don't change your mind just because he has cooled off. Obviously the shooting/scoring ability hasn't changed. Players should not be judged on a few games, but on an entire body of work.

When you see a guy score 47 then 34 and hit 12-13 3's youre impression climbs very high. Kentucky has been on all year and over the last many games Ive seen the other side. Smallish player with only a good handle who doesnt rebound or pass very much . Ive called Smith wld here and its somewhat true--but hes also a better NBA prospect for US because hes a PG built stronger plays better D and rebounds. Hes better imho.

Can you think of a player who scores like Monk as a freshman that didn't become a good nba player? Also, i think its obvious Kentucky guards translate well. And it's possible that Monk is a better defender and passer than we realize because of playing alongside Fox. I have watched Monk look pretty good in limited pick and roll opportunities. Smith, i'll admit i haven't watched much, but i don't understand how a player as good as him was on such a bad team if he's a difference-maker.

You take Smith for many reasons over Monk. You take Smith over the frenchie too. In terms of safety with a guard Smith is a smarter choice of fox monk frenchie because his overall skills are higher Fox is also quick and plays good d but Smith is a proven 3 point shooter with a stronger body

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Right now
#1 Ball
#2 Jackson
#3 Fultz
#4 Tatum
#5 Smith
#6 Fox

I dont want to go below this. I know whod I pick at 7 and he is no G--hes a safe pick. But if we want a guard or F we need top 6 MINIMALLY.

I would go Monk over Smith. I like how Kentucky guards translate to the NBA and i think he will have more opprtunity to let loose when he can handle the ball more. Also, i can't think of any elite offensive players (as freshman) who failed in the nba. Maybe Beasley, but we know the reasons why. Otherwise, elite scoring players typically become elite offensively in the nba. There is so much more space in the NBA to operate.

1. Fultz
2. Ball
3. Jackson
4. Tatum
5. Monk
6. Fox
7. Ntilikina
8. Smith

Id take Smith over Monk--I thought Monk at one point was pick #1 but that has coold off. Id take Smith over Monk because he makes plays with the dribble--has a stronger NBA body much better passer defender
re bounder--Remember Smith was on a bad team--and while he can be wild---I think hes taylor made for the NBA.

I highlighted a key part though. You tend to swift your thoughts on players quickly based on a couple of games. You see what Monk can do. Just because he has cooled off doesn't mean he can't do it anymore. Just like Fox, i told you how good he can be, and you were so focused on his 3pt % saying there is no way we should draft him. Now he makes a couple of shots and his stock has risen in your mind. But the reality is, nothing has changed with Fox. He has been the same player all year. The only difference now is his 3pt attempts are going in at a slightly higher rate. It was easy to see his shooting would improve. If you once saw Monk as a possible #1 player, don't change your mind just because he has cooled off. Obviously the shooting/scoring ability hasn't changed. Players should not be judged on a few games, but on an entire body of work.

When you see a guy score 47 then 34 and hit 12-13 3's youre impression climbs very high. Kentucky has been on all year and over the last many games Ive seen the other side. Smallish player with only a good handle who doesnt rebound or pass very much . Ive called Smith wld here and its somewhat true--but hes also a better NBA prospect for US because hes a PG built stronger plays better D and rebounds. Hes better imho.

Can you think of a player who scores like Monk as a freshman that didn't become a good nba player? Also, i think its obvious Kentucky guards translate well. And it's possible that Monk is a better defender and passer than we realize because of playing alongside Fox. I have watched Monk look pretty good in limited pick and roll opportunities. Smith, i'll admit i haven't watched much, but i don't understand how a player as good as him was on such a bad team if he's a difference-maker.

You take Smith for many reasons over Monk. You take Smith over the frenchie too. In terms of safety with a guard Smith is a smarter choice of fox monk frenchie because his overall skills are higher Fox is also quick and plays good d but Smith is a proven 3 point shooter with a stronger body

No way do you take Smith over fox at this point. Fox is just a winner, and his leadership skills are obvious. I like smith's skillset but I don't see that same leadership.

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Right now
#1 Ball
#2 Jackson
#3 Fultz
#4 Tatum
#5 Smith
#6 Fox

I dont want to go below this. I know whod I pick at 7 and he is no G--hes a safe pick. But if we want a guard or F we need top 6 MINIMALLY.

I would go Monk over Smith. I like how Kentucky guards translate to the NBA and i think he will have more opprtunity to let loose when he can handle the ball more. Also, i can't think of any elite offensive players (as freshman) who failed in the nba. Maybe Beasley, but we know the reasons why. Otherwise, elite scoring players typically become elite offensively in the nba. There is so much more space in the NBA to operate.

1. Fultz
2. Ball
3. Jackson
4. Tatum
5. Monk
6. Fox
7. Ntilikina
8. Smith

Id take Smith over Monk--I thought Monk at one point was pick #1 but that has coold off. Id take Smith over Monk because he makes plays with the dribble--has a stronger NBA body much better passer defender
re bounder--Remember Smith was on a bad team--and while he can be wild---I think hes taylor made for the NBA.

I highlighted a key part though. You tend to swift your thoughts on players quickly based on a couple of games. You see what Monk can do. Just because he has cooled off doesn't mean he can't do it anymore. Just like Fox, i told you how good he can be, and you were so focused on his 3pt % saying there is no way we should draft him. Now he makes a couple of shots and his stock has risen in your mind. But the reality is, nothing has changed with Fox. He has been the same player all year. The only difference now is his 3pt attempts are going in at a slightly higher rate. It was easy to see his shooting would improve. If you once saw Monk as a possible #1 player, don't change your mind just because he has cooled off. Obviously the shooting/scoring ability hasn't changed. Players should not be judged on a few games, but on an entire body of work.

When you see a guy score 47 then 34 and hit 12-13 3's youre impression climbs very high. Kentucky has been on all year and over the last many games Ive seen the other side. Smallish player with only a good handle who doesnt rebound or pass very much . Ive called Smith wld here and its somewhat true--but hes also a better NBA prospect for US because hes a PG built stronger plays better D and rebounds. Hes better imho.

Can you think of a player who scores like Monk as a freshman that didn't become a good nba player? Also, i think its obvious Kentucky guards translate well. And it's possible that Monk is a better defender and passer than we realize because of playing alongside Fox. I have watched Monk look pretty good in limited pick and roll opportunities. Smith, i'll admit i haven't watched much, but i don't understand how a player as good as him was on such a bad team if he's a difference-maker.

You take Smith for many reasons over Monk. You take Smith over the frenchie too. In terms of safety with a guard Smith is a smarter choice of fox monk frenchie because his overall skills are higher Fox is also quick and plays good d but Smith is a proven 3 point shooter with a stronger body

No way do you take Smith over fox at this point. Fox is just a winner, and his leadership skills are obvious. I like smith's skillset but I don't see that same leadership.

Briggs after watching that game, you still take Smith over fox?