Point being these amazing performances are important data but hopefully our scouts stay level headed and look at a full body of work. Maybe fox goes high and ball falls to us. A week ago we would have been ecstatic w ball

Chandler wrote:Back when top players played in the predraft tournaments, legend has it that pAul pierce was slotted for a super high pick. Vince Carter however plays at the tournament and absolutely stuns people. Scouts start questioning pierces ability and he falls to the celts at 10(?)

Point being these amazing performances are important data but hopefully our scouts stay level headed and look at a full body of work. Maybe fox goes high and ball falls to us. A week ago we would have been ecstatic w ball

One thing I expect is our scouts to do a thorough job. This pick is HUGE and can't be a passion pick based on small data sets. Projecting college performance to the NBA is hard and there are no guarantees of success. A lot can change between now and the draft.

Have some concern about his outside shot and that at NBA defenses will sag off him cut under screens etc as they do against rondo

I admit I'm horrible at projecting talent to NBA. But I've liked monk and ball. Haven't seen Jackson or fultz (but already concerned he's a sales job. How can a player be worthy of #1 on such a poor record)

Chandler wrote:Back when top players played in the predraft tournaments, legend has it that pAul pierce was slotted for a super high pick. Vince Carter however plays at the tournament and absolutely stuns people. Scouts start questioning pierces ability and he falls to the celts at 10(?)

Point being these amazing performances are important data but hopefully our scouts stay level headed and look at a full body of work. Maybe fox goes high and ball falls to us. A week ago we would have been ecstatic w ball

Wasn't there an incident where Pierce was stabbed outside a nightclub in college that made people sort of doubt his character?

Josh Jackson has a similar weird incident or two at Kansas, nothing huge... wouldn't mind if that let him fall into our laps.

90sKnicks wrote:I would love to see us get the shooting guard from Belgium with our Bulls pick in round 2. Doubt he'll still be on the board by then.

If you mean Ntilikina I could see us use our lottery pick on him. He plays defense and can really shoot.

reub wrote:

90sKnicks wrote:I would love to see us get the shooting guard from Belgium with our Bulls pick in round 2. Doubt he'll still be on the board by then.

If you mean Ntilikina I could see us use our lottery pick on him. He plays defense and can really shoot.

No, I mean Kostja Mushidi in Round 2.

WaltLongmire wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Holy ****. Feel like Fox might've played his way up to pick no.4 tonight.

He'd be my pick after Ball and Jackson, for sure.

If he has a run and a good game that gets them past NC, he might very well play himself out of our slot.

Will be interesting to see if he can duplicate this kind of performance.

I don't know if he can score like that again, if he does you're probably right... but he did have 22pts 9ast the first time he met Ball, so he's got 60pts over two games against him.

It'll be funny if because of tournament play Jackson and Fox play their way into the top 3. Right now we're tied for 5th (!!!) in the lotto... with some luck, we could get up to three. It'd be crazy if we were in the position to get a guy like Fultz at no.4 or something though.

Probably right about the scoring, though you assume his shot will improve. Scored a lot on drives and short pull-ups...Offensively, his game might be a little like Rose...but he's clearly going to be good defender.

I liked the fact that he took the Ball matchup as a challenge, and the rest of the team seemed to defer to him, and that included Monk, who is a great shooter, but more of a complimentary player.

Monk is very hard to scout, much like Devin Booker was at UK. He doesn't get the ball much with the ability to create, he really just gets the ball in positions where he basically needs to shoot it immediately. I think Monk can explode in a similar way to how Booker has (not sure he'll have a 70pt game though!).

As for Fox, I think he has the little floater or tear drop shot that it doesn't seem like Rose has, he also doesn't avoid contact driving as much as Rose does. So his in-between game is a little better, which might help mitigate his lack of outside shot. Again, I think his form is good on his jumper, so I think his three point shot could improve.

Right now the two guys I want most would be either Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox. Monk might be third on the guys I want list. I'm willing to concede Ball or Fultz are better prospects than everyone but Josh Jackson... I just like the games of Jackson, Fox, and Monk quite a bit. I'm curious about Frank Ntilikina... but worried his bust factor could be high. Hopefully we'll be in the top 5 at least, which means we should absolutely be able to grab Jackson, Fox, or Monk.

reub wrote:

TPercy wrote:

reub wrote:My revised draft order for the Knicks:

Ball
Fultz
Fox
Jackson
Isaac
Ntilikina
Smith
Tatum
Monk
Bridges

The first 6 or 7 can be difference makers imho so we should do well.

I'd take Dennis Smith over the french guy any day of the week. He is an NBA ready explosive scorer with underrated passing who we can put next to KP. From the limited info I have, Frank is a project who would need time.

I like Smith too but I worry about his defense.

crzymdups wrote:

Chandler wrote:I like a lot of what Ive seen from fox especially poise and defense.

Have some concern about his outside shot and that at NBA defenses will sag off him cut under screens etc as they do against rondo

I admit I'm horrible at projecting talent to NBA. But I've liked monk and ball. Haven't seen Jackson or fultz (but already concerned he's a sales job. How can a player be worthy of #1 on such a poor record)

I'm similarly iffy on Fultz. He has the tools, but it seems like he has no idea how to win games. Could've just been a terrible team. But in college you'd think a number one overall pick would at least make the tournie.

Watch Josh Jackson if you can. The guy is smooth. At first he reminded me of Iguodala but bigger. I think he can be a dominant force. I think he could be a Pippen/Odom/Kawhi guy in the Triangle. He's my favorite guy in the draft. He looks like a man among boys. I hesitate to say it... but moreso than Iggy... he's reminding me a bit of Bron sometimes. He's very very very good. I would have a hard time not taking him number 1 overall.

He sounds fantastic. I hope to watch soon. Three concerns w many college players

1) they often measure short. 6'9" guys end up being 6'6" in socks. That sort of thing
2) many top players are on stacked teams. No data for example showing how some of these guys will play against a double team of two NBA defenders or doubles in general. If a team doubles some of these guys they'd be nuts because the team has good wide open options
3) the stacked teams and short schedules make it hard to truly evaluate a players internal make up

I've seen a lot of players from top schools (including duke and Kansas)disappoint a lot or a little when getting to pros. The one possible exception seems to be Kentucky. That team is consistently stacked yet seems to fairly reliably produce NBA contributors

Kansas worries me some because of Beasley and mcelmore. And to some extent Wiggins who while good was touted as lebron good while in college -- of close

nixluva wrote:

Chandler wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Chandler wrote:I like a lot of what Ive seen from fox especially poise and defense.

Have some concern about his outside shot and that at NBA defenses will sag off him cut under screens etc as they do against rondo

I admit I'm horrible at projecting talent to NBA. But I've liked monk and ball. Haven't seen Jackson or fultz (but already concerned he's a sales job. How can a player be worthy of #1 on such a poor record)

I'm similarly iffy on Fultz. He has the tools, but it seems like he has no idea how to win games. Could've just been a terrible team. But in college you'd think a number one overall pick would at least make the tournie.

Watch Josh Jackson if you can. The guy is smooth. At first he reminded me of Iguodala but bigger. I think he can be a dominant force. I think he could be a Pippen/Odom/Kawhi guy in the Triangle. He's my favorite guy in the draft. He looks like a man among boys. I hesitate to say it... but moreso than Iggy... he's reminding me a bit of Bron sometimes. He's very very very good. I would have a hard time not taking him number 1 overall.

He sounds fantastic. I hope to watch soon. Three concerns w many college players

1) they often measure short. 6'9" guys end up being 6'6" in socks. That sort of thing
2) many top players are on stacked teams. No data for example showing how some of these guys will play against a double team of two NBA defenders or doubles in general. If a team doubles some of these guys they'd be nuts because the team has good wide open options
3) the stacked teams and short schedules make it hard to truly evaluate a players internal make up

I've seen a lot of players from top schools (including duke and Kansas)disappoint a lot or a little when getting to pros. The one possible exception seems to be Kentucky. That team is consistently stacked yet seems to fairly reliably produce NBA contributors

Kansas worries me some because of Beasley and mcelmore. And to some extent Wiggins who while good was touted as lebron good while in college -- of close

I think the flops of the past are making Scouting better cuz they're on the lookout for the kinds of things you bring up. IMO scouting has gotten better and better in recent years. You see them dig deeper and deeper into base skills, BB IQ, every aspect of a player's handles, shooting form etc. It seems to me that they spot Weaknesses much better too. It used to be that all we got were Highlight Videos and you never really dug beneath the surface on these players.

I've been looking for BB IQ and situational awareness. I've been looking for Poise and decision making and also how a player uses his talent to make the team better rather than just being able to score for himself just cuz he can. With Jackson, Ball and now Fox I think I see more than just guys that have superior physical talent. You can see them thinking and making smart decisions that show understanding.

I hope ur right insofar as Knicks scouts go. Russell at 2. Herzonja at 5. Mudiay etc show there are still big risks. Yet jokic in 2d round.