[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Monk could be a triangle PG
Author Thread
wargames
Posts: 22833
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/27/2015
Member: #6053

3/26/2017  10:04 PM
Knixkik wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:Monk started off the season on fire-- looked great. The last third of the season he looks like a second round pick. No way the knicks

You judge guys strictly off their last game so I knew you would say this. Look at his season as a whole. He had a great freshman year. His scoring numbers are strong. And the system limits him, like it did Booker.

I think you do Knox. monk has been poor most of the last 15 games . I think hes been exposed as a smallish 2 guard who doesn't rebound or pass-- nor does he handle that well. Could he be a Lou Williams-- absolutely -- but he is no Knick pick 0/100 no chance

booker is 6-6 200+ monk looks 6-2 185

You won't find me flip flopping opinions. I don't judge guys on small sample sizes. Monk is 6'3-6'4 with a 6'6 wing span. Booker is 6'6 with a 6'7 wing span. And monk is a much much better athlete.

Actually Draft express has Monk having a 6'3.5 wingspan..... he has raptor arms but his skill level compensates for it.

The algorithm gives and the algorithm takes away
AUTOADVERT
Sangfroid
Posts: 24681
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/7/2009
Member: #2784

3/26/2017  10:29 PM
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

"We are playing a game. We are playing at not playing a game..."
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
3/26/2017  10:43 PM
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

¿ △ ?
LivingLegend
Posts: 23672
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 8/13/2007
Member: #1645

3/26/2017  11:25 PM
Monk is being under valued by folks who can't see College game and his role at UK vs NBA game // potential role.

If Westbrook can become a PG -- Monk (could) become a PG.

At UK In the 1/2 court Monk is basically relegated to running the baseline and coming off screens and having to play against loaded up defenses while squeezing off tough contested jump,shots with people draped all over him. Monk has the ball, BAM fills the post and Monk is left off the ball mostly shooting jump shots.

In the open court he is absolute dynamic, creative and explosive. Put in a system where the ball is moved and some better looks are created he will knock down more shots and more importantly he will have more room to attack the rim.

While Monk is no pure PG and might be on the smaller side for the SG position the guy is legit and I liked that he played his role at UK..stayed within the team framework and worked very hard all year.
I think some teams are going to see more upside with Monk and I agree with the original poster that he could play a guard role in the triangle. He moves well off the ball utilizing screens and cutting back door - the triangle would create space for him to attack the rim and get to his pull up jump shot.

He is a legit top 7 prospect and again some teams will see him higher -- some maybe lower.

GustavBahler
Posts: 41138
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2010
Member: #3186

3/26/2017  11:26 PM
crzymdups wrote:
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

Im wary of anyone being drafted with the Triangle being the biggest reason. Will it matter in a couple of years? Probably not. If Phil could draft a PG, a real floor general for the next decade, I would be a real happy camper. Not easy but possible IMO if Phil doesn't get too hung up on wether or not someone is Triangle ready.

If thats a consideration, its better resolved in the second round, not the lottery.

crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
3/26/2017  11:41 PM
GustavBahler wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

Im wary of anyone being drafted with the Triangle being the biggest reason. Will it matter in a couple of years? Probably not. If Phil could draft a PG, a real floor general for the next decade, I would be a real happy camper. Not easy but possible IMO if Phil doesn't get too hung up on wether or not someone is Triangle ready.

If thats a consideration, its better resolved in the second round, not the lottery.

In the lottery... I mean this is a huge business decision for the Knicks going forward. It's worth noting Mills was in Memphis scouting Fox and Monk and Lonzo and whoever else while Phil was in LA. I think Phil would get some serious push back if he tried to make an extremely esoteric pick. I hope, at least..

¿ △ ?
LivingLegend
Posts: 23672
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 8/13/2007
Member: #1645

3/26/2017  11:42 PM    LAST EDITED: 3/26/2017  11:45 PM
Monk vs Westbrook -- college stats....

Westbrook (SO year - age 20)
Mins 34
FG% 47%
3%. 34%
FT. 71%
RB. 3.9
Asst 4.3
Stl. 1.6
Pts. 12.7

Monk. (Age 19)
Mins. 32
FG%. 45%
3%. 40%
FT%. 83%
RB. 2.5
Asst. 2.3
Stl. 2.1
Pts. 20.1

Put the ball in Monks hands more often and you never know.

Knixkik
Posts: 34857
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #11
USA
3/27/2017  8:26 AM
LivingLegend wrote:Monk is being under valued by folks who can't see College game and his role at UK vs NBA game // potential role.

If Westbrook can become a PG -- Monk (could) become a PG.

At UK In the 1/2 court Monk is basically relegated to running the baseline and coming off screens and having to play against loaded up defenses while squeezing off tough contested jump,shots with people draped all over him. Monk has the ball, BAM fills the post and Monk is left off the ball mostly shooting jump shots.

In the open court he is absolute dynamic, creative and explosive. Put in a system where the ball is moved and some better looks are created he will knock down more shots and more importantly he will have more room to attack the rim.

While Monk is no pure PG and might be on the smaller side for the SG position the guy is legit and I liked that he played his role at UK..stayed within the team framework and worked very hard all year.
I think some teams are going to see more upside with Monk and I agree with the original poster that he could play a guard role in the triangle. He moves well off the ball utilizing screens and cutting back door - the triangle would create space for him to attack the rim and get to his pull up jump shot.

He is a legit top 7 prospect and again some teams will see him higher -- some maybe lower.

Exactly right. It's easy to see that Monk has a skillset that will be on display more in the nba than in college.

jamp
Posts: 20145
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/3/2010
Member: #3163

3/27/2017  11:21 AM
Knixkik wrote:
LivingLegend wrote:Monk is being under valued by folks who can't see College game and his role at UK vs NBA game // potential role.

If Westbrook can become a PG -- Monk (could) become a PG.

At UK In the 1/2 court Monk is basically relegated to running the baseline and coming off screens and having to play against loaded up defenses while squeezing off tough contested jump,shots with people draped all over him. Monk has the ball, BAM fills the post and Monk is left off the ball mostly shooting jump shots.

In the open court he is absolute dynamic, creative and explosive. Put in a system where the ball is moved and some better looks are created he will knock down more shots and more importantly he will have more room to attack the rim.

While Monk is no pure PG and might be on the smaller side for the SG position the guy is legit and I liked that he played his role at UK..stayed within the team framework and worked very hard all year.
I think some teams are going to see more upside with Monk and I agree with the original poster that he could play a guard role in the triangle. He moves well off the ball utilizing screens and cutting back door - the triangle would create space for him to attack the rim and get to his pull up jump shot.

He is a legit top 7 prospect and again some teams will see him higher -- some maybe lower.

Exactly right. It's easy to see that Monk has a skillset that will be on display more in the nba than in college.

Totally agree.

BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/27/2017  1:08 PM    LAST EDITED: 3/27/2017  1:12 PM
Monk's last 19 games
shot better than 50% 2 times
His shooting % for both the SEC tournament and NCAA tourney was below 40%
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more rebounds twice for the season he had 2 or less rebounds 19 times
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more assists twice for the season he had 2 assists or less 20 times
He is no triangle PG hes not even close to a PG he doesnt handle or play like a PG. Hes a 6-2/6-3 SG who is built slightly.
When I first saw Monk months ago now--I was quite impressed--but I think like some--watching him throughout the season--you saw flaws. He will have some room in the nBA--he could be like a Lou Williams type--and certainly thats a player. PG? no.
RIP Crushalot😞
Knixkik
Posts: 34857
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #11
USA
3/27/2017  1:17 PM
BRIGGS wrote:Monk's last 19 games
shot better than 50% 2 times
His shooting % for both the SEC tournament and NCAA tourney was below 40%
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more rebounds twice for the season he had 2 or less rebounds 19 times
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more assists twice for the season he had 2 assists or less 20 times
He is no triangle PG hes not even close to a PG he doesnt handle or play like a PG. Hes a 6-2/6-3 SG who is built slightly.
When I first saw Monk months ago now--I was quite impressed--but I think like some--watching him throughout the season--you saw flaws. He will have some room in the nBA--he could be like a Lou Williams type--and certainly thats a player. PG? no.

Williams is 6'1. Monk is listed between 6'3 and 6'4. Monk is a better shooter and athlete. Not a good comp. He at least becomes Eric Gordon level, but i see someone closer to McCollum.

nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/27/2017  1:31 PM
Knixkik wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:Monk's last 19 games
shot better than 50% 2 times
His shooting % for both the SEC tournament and NCAA tourney was below 40%
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more rebounds twice for the season he had 2 or less rebounds 19 times
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more assists twice for the season he had 2 assists or less 20 times
He is no triangle PG hes not even close to a PG he doesnt handle or play like a PG. Hes a 6-2/6-3 SG who is built slightly.
When I first saw Monk months ago now--I was quite impressed--but I think like some--watching him throughout the season--you saw flaws. He will have some room in the nBA--he could be like a Lou Williams type--and certainly thats a player. PG? no.

Williams is 6'1. Monk is listed between 6'3 and 6'4. Monk is a better shooter and athlete. Not a good comp. He at least becomes Eric Gordon level, but i see someone closer to McCollum.

I agree that Monk is closer to a McCollum or Gordon type. He's able to get up the floor and finish above the rim. On the Knicks Monk could get open looks a lot easier due to the defense being distracted. Our guards get open looks with no problem. MAKING more of them is the issue.

In the Triangle most of the shots are created with player movement off Dribble Hand Offs and cuts. Monk wouldn't have to be anymore of a PG than Fisher was. Monk is certainly more talented and should be able to do more with the same opportunities.

BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/27/2017  1:36 PM
Knixkik wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:Monk's last 19 games
shot better than 50% 2 times
His shooting % for both the SEC tournament and NCAA tourney was below 40%
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more rebounds twice for the season he had 2 or less rebounds 19 times
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more assists twice for the season he had 2 assists or less 20 times
He is no triangle PG hes not even close to a PG he doesnt handle or play like a PG. Hes a 6-2/6-3 SG who is built slightly.
When I first saw Monk months ago now--I was quite impressed--but I think like some--watching him throughout the season--you saw flaws. He will have some room in the nBA--he could be like a Lou Williams type--and certainly thats a player. PG? no.

Williams is 6'1. Monk is listed between 6'3 and 6'4. Monk is a better shooter and athlete. Not a good comp. He at least becomes Eric Gordon level, but i see someone closer to McCollum.

Thats fine--you wont have to worry because he wont be a Knick

RIP Crushalot😞
blkexec
Posts: 27793
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/3/2004
Member: #748
3/27/2017  1:42 PM
GustavBahler wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

Im wary of anyone being drafted with the Triangle being the biggest reason. Will it matter in a couple of years? Probably not. If Phil could draft a PG, a real floor general for the next decade, I would be a real happy camper. Not easy but possible IMO if Phil doesn't get too hung up on wether or not someone is Triangle ready.

If thats a consideration, its better resolved in the second round, not the lottery.

In the past I would, but now that I'm educated on the triangle, I don't mind. For example, Josh Jackson is a triangle type player, because he's unselfish, knows how to make the right pass, and a team player, who also averaged close to 20 a game....on top of that, he might be the best 2 way player in the draft. If the triangle forces us to look at players like this, I'm ok with that. But I doubt phil will pick a charlie ward type PG as the 4th or 5th pick, just because he appears to be a lead guard in the triangle. I think the triangle can fit all types of players, especially with high IQ. We need players that can impact the game, without over dribbling and isolating their teammates.

Born in Brooklyn, Raised in Queens, Lives in Maryland. The future is bright, I'm a Knicks fan for life!
Knixkik
Posts: 34857
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #11
USA
3/27/2017  1:46 PM
BRIGGS wrote:
Knixkik wrote:
BRIGGS wrote:Monk's last 19 games
shot better than 50% 2 times
His shooting % for both the SEC tournament and NCAA tourney was below 40%
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more rebounds twice for the season he had 2 or less rebounds 19 times
In his last 19 games he had 5 or more assists twice for the season he had 2 assists or less 20 times
He is no triangle PG hes not even close to a PG he doesnt handle or play like a PG. Hes a 6-2/6-3 SG who is built slightly.
When I first saw Monk months ago now--I was quite impressed--but I think like some--watching him throughout the season--you saw flaws. He will have some room in the nBA--he could be like a Lou Williams type--and certainly thats a player. PG? no.

Williams is 6'1. Monk is listed between 6'3 and 6'4. Monk is a better shooter and athlete. Not a good comp. He at least becomes Eric Gordon level, but i see someone closer to McCollum.

Thats fine--you wont have to worry because he wont be a Knick

That's fine, who do you think the knicks are most likely to draft?

knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
3/27/2017  1:50 PM
EnySpree wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:You can see the passing and playmaking ability if you really watch him. He doesn't have d rose tunnel vision. His playmaking will never be on display alongside Fox, but he can be converted like Harden was. You can build an offense completely around monk, Porzingis, and Hernangomez. You will have to have wings who are unselfish, versatile on defense, and can shoot. Lee and Thomas can provide some of that, but obviously longterm upgrades would be needed. I can definitely see phil going this route. Worst case, monk becomes just a scorer who can provide secondary playmaking, but best case is he can use his elite skills and athletic ability and turn into a triangle type pg.

In the triangle, the pg brings the ball up, hands it of, and runs to the corner. There's very little play making (see jennings) and scoring is a 3rd or 4th option..When you think pg's, you better think on the lines of FISHER and KERR

But when did you ever see Rose or Jennings hand off and run to the corner? 🤔🤥🤥🤥🤥

jennings said it himself, he wasn't able to be creative becacuase that's not the triangle, and rose also said he could not understand the offense

[quoteIn a system that essentially requires the point guard to be stationed in the corner, a non-shooter like Rose is often tasked with playing to his weaknesses.

Rose is averaging 17.6 points and 4.4 assists per game, which implies that he’s ill-equipped to be New York’s facilitator. He’s also a 22.8 percent 3-point shooter, which implies that he’s ill-equipped to work without the ball.

If the Knicks are going to make a successful push for the postseason, then Rose will need to adapt and adjust
]

Once again, I would like people to go look at all the PG's in phils triangle, not 1 avg over 5 assist

ES
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/27/2017  1:58 PM
knicks1248 wrote:
EnySpree wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
Knixkik wrote:You can see the passing and playmaking ability if you really watch him. He doesn't have d rose tunnel vision. His playmaking will never be on display alongside Fox, but he can be converted like Harden was. You can build an offense completely around monk, Porzingis, and Hernangomez. You will have to have wings who are unselfish, versatile on defense, and can shoot. Lee and Thomas can provide some of that, but obviously longterm upgrades would be needed. I can definitely see phil going this route. Worst case, monk becomes just a scorer who can provide secondary playmaking, but best case is he can use his elite skills and athletic ability and turn into a triangle type pg.

In the triangle, the pg brings the ball up, hands it of, and runs to the corner. There's very little play making (see jennings) and scoring is a 3rd or 4th option..When you think pg's, you better think on the lines of FISHER and KERR

But when did you ever see Rose or Jennings hand off and run to the corner? 🤔🤥🤥🤥🤥

jennings said it himself, he wasn't able to be creative becacuase that's not the triangle, and rose also said he could not understand the offense

[quoteIn a system that essentially requires the point guard to be stationed in the corner, a non-shooter like Rose is often tasked with playing to his weaknesses.

Rose is averaging 17.6 points and 4.4 assists per game, which implies that he’s ill-equipped to be New York’s facilitator. He’s also a 22.8 percent 3-point shooter, which implies that he’s ill-equipped to work without the ball.

If the Knicks are going to make a successful push for the postseason, then Rose will need to adapt and adjust
]

Once again, I would like people to go look at all the PG's in phils triangle, not 1 avg over 5 assist

The problem isn't the Triangle! Rose has MANY opportunities to set up his teammates but simply doesn't pass the damned ball!!! He's scoring just fine!!! Clearly it's not stopping him from scoring. The issue is that he could be a bit more Team Oriented but simply isn't.

The only difference is that PG's have to give up the ball earlier in the Triangle but they get it back and then have opportunities to create in the FLOW of the offense!!!

meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

3/27/2017  2:11 PM
crzymdups wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

Im wary of anyone being drafted with the Triangle being the biggest reason. Will it matter in a couple of years? Probably not. If Phil could draft a PG, a real floor general for the next decade, I would be a real happy camper. Not easy but possible IMO if Phil doesn't get too hung up on wether or not someone is Triangle ready.

If thats a consideration, its better resolved in the second round, not the lottery.

In the lottery... I mean this is a huge business decision for the Knicks going forward. It's worth noting Mills was in Memphis scouting Fox and Monk and Lonzo and whoever else while Phil was in LA. I think Phil would get some serious push back if he tried to make an extremely esoteric pick. I hope, at least..

Is there any evidence that Phil makes esoteric picks? Or are we still in the "lets wildly speculate so we can preemptively blame Phil for something he didn't and most likely won't do", phase of the discussion.

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
wargames
Posts: 22833
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/27/2015
Member: #6053

3/27/2017  2:19 PM
meloshouldgo wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

Im wary of anyone being drafted with the Triangle being the biggest reason. Will it matter in a couple of years? Probably not. If Phil could draft a PG, a real floor general for the next decade, I would be a real happy camper. Not easy but possible IMO if Phil doesn't get too hung up on wether or not someone is Triangle ready.

If thats a consideration, its better resolved in the second round, not the lottery.

In the lottery... I mean this is a huge business decision for the Knicks going forward. It's worth noting Mills was in Memphis scouting Fox and Monk and Lonzo and whoever else while Phil was in LA. I think Phil would get some serious push back if he tried to make an extremely esoteric pick. I hope, at least..

Is there any evidence that Phil makes esoteric picks? Or are we still in the "lets wildly speculate so we can preemptively blame Phil for something he didn't and most likely won't do", phase of the discussion.

After KP if Phil says Clarence Gaines and the rest of the scouts liked somebody I am not going to complain.

The algorithm gives and the algorithm takes away
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/27/2017  3:03 PM
blkexec wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Sangfroid wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Uptown wrote:

Hahaha. I was gonna say. The more I see of Monk, he reminds me of JR Smith. He can get hot but otherwise seems to disappear. Though it's hard to scout a guy like him at UK, like Booker was.

Sorry, no Monk. He is a JR Smith clone, 'cause JR could play some D. Monk, not so much. Thornwell from S. Carolina would fit the bill. Big, strong, nice size and the beneficiary of 4 years of college play. The SEC player of the year. Find a team that wants 7th place in the lottery, get some additional benefits, (extra picks), and get him. He's a Phil Jackson kind of player.

We're currently 4th in the lottery standings. I'm hoping for Josh Jackson or De'Aaron Fox until we know our pick.

Im wary of anyone being drafted with the Triangle being the biggest reason. Will it matter in a couple of years? Probably not. If Phil could draft a PG, a real floor general for the next decade, I would be a real happy camper. Not easy but possible IMO if Phil doesn't get too hung up on wether or not someone is Triangle ready.

If thats a consideration, its better resolved in the second round, not the lottery.

In the past I would, but now that I'm educated on the triangle, I don't mind. For example, Josh Jackson is a triangle type player, because he's unselfish, knows how to make the right pass, and a team player, who also averaged close to 20 a game....on top of that, he might be the best 2 way player in the draft. If the triangle forces us to look at players like this, I'm ok with that. But I doubt phil will pick a charlie ward type PG as the 4th or 5th pick, just because he appears to be a lead guard in the triangle. I think the triangle can fit all types of players, especially with high IQ. We need players that can impact the game, without over dribbling and isolating their teammates.

I missed this post somehow but man you hit the nail right on the head!!! GREAT POST! People moan about Triangle players not realizing what that means! It's not a negative thing. It's a positive thing and any talented, smart, unselfish, skilled 2 way player is going to be a good Triangle player.

Of course a ball dominant low IQ player is going to struggle, but do we want those guys???

Monk could be a triangle PG

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy