BRIGGS wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:Not the biggest fan of either, but Smith can handle the ball.

I see Smith as another Rose and can see him getting injured because of his high flying style.

Even though I don't want either of them, given the choices we should have, both have some major talent.

Have said this earlier...Monk will go to Sixers, assuming that the Simmons "point" plan is on track.

I also think, that like Rose, Smith is more of a scorer, and he will not use up his effort on the defensive end.

Everything here, my humble opinion, of course.

I see aspects of Rose in Smith as well. The injury potential scare. Be Smith's jumper is more advanced and he shows more defensive potential. But can Smith's iso game fit in the triangle. I pick Smith in a vacuum. But Monk might make more sense when everything is taken into consideration. I think I would punt on both and take Frank T.

Never know what they show in a workout.

I know there are debates on whether you put more emphasis on a players body of work...or the workouts they do for a team, where the team can put them through drills that show them if they fit in with what that team wants from a player.

Just found this series of video assessments... Have to say that when Smith is motivated he can be a good defender from what I see in this video- especially when he is on the ball... though there are moments where he reminds me of Harden when he is off the ball.

Just have to trust your talent evaluators.

This is why the answer is Smith. Too many people are just focusing on the triangle and how the player would fit in offensively as a scorer but they are missing the bigger picture. Monk is undersized SG that doesn't rebound, pass, or defend but Smith can do it all. Now will it take a coach to keep him motivated sure but it is also up to the GM to get talent around him to keep him for thinking he has to force it. I think it would be best to keep the expectations low and start Smith off the bench to begin the season and then see what happens.

I have to assume that these people on Monk just happened to miss his last 20 games or so. They mightve misssed that he cant handle the ball too well doesnt rebound at all and when defenses got a fix on him used size to bother him.

In his last 20 games as a college freshman and the #1 target for every defense Monk had scoring games of 24, 27, 25, 37, 23, 20, 33, 20, 18, 18, 17, 17 and In 34 regular season games he failed to score in double digits in 2 games.

Smith on the year shot 46%, 36% and 72%. Monk shot 45%, 40%, and 82%.

Monk's team won 14 straight down the stretch before losing a 2 point game in the final 8. DSJ's team went 1-10 down the stretch, his coach got fired and his attitude/effort/unselfishness were questioned.

Uptown wrote:Monk looks very intriguing...his game translates to today's NBA...His size is a factor though...

I agree if he were 6'4" in socks I don't think folks would be questioning and yes it's a legit concern.

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:Monk disappears too often, and is too short to play the 2 position in the classic triangle at 6'3" and I don't think he's a one. I really like Smith, but not really for the Knicks as I want a bigger PG who can run the O, lead the D, and easily get the ball to KP and Willy.

Name me the 6 top PGs in Phil's championship years using the triangle and lets see if Monk might be able to stack up against the competition.

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:Monk disappears too often, and is too short to play the 2 position in the classic triangle at 6'3" and I don't think he's a one. I really like Smith, but not really for the Knicks as I want a bigger PG who can run the O, lead the D, and easily get the ball to KP and Willy.

Name me the 6 top PGs in Phil's championship years using the triangle and lets see if Monk might be able to stack up against the competition.

I don't think Monk is a PG. I think he's a 2.

My point is that Phil using the triangle won a bunch of championships without true starting PGs -- the system simply doesn't require what we think of in terms of pure pci/roll PGs

With a high lotto pick we need a guy that will potentially make others better. I don't see that within Monks game. While his scoring ability might be set. Whe we are as a franchise we need something more.

nixluva wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:Monk disappears too often, and is too short to play the 2 position in the classic triangle at 6'3" and I don't think he's a one. I really like Smith, but not really for the Knicks as I want a bigger PG who can run the O, lead the D, and easily get the ball to KP and Willy.

Name me the 6 top PGs in Phil's championship years using the triangle and lets see if Monk might be able to stack up against the competition.

I don't think Monk is a PG. I think he's a 2.

My point is that Phil using the triangle won a bunch of championships without true starting PGs -- the system simply doesn't require what we think of in terms of pure pci/roll PGs

With a high lotto pick we need a guy that will potentially make others better. I don't see that within Monks game. While his scoring ability might be set. Whe we are as a franchise we need something more.

Monk isn't a pure PG but he has underrated passing ability. He's more of a natural passer than Baker and like Monk Baker was not used as a PG in College.

Not being ASKED to run a team doesn't mean he's unable to do it. The Triangle and even Jeff's style doesn't require a Pure PG. IMO Monk has enough BBIQ and skill to be good as a guard for this team. It's just not a Ball Dominant PG Style. It's VERY SIMPLE and quick reads. More important is the ability to shoot, drive and finish at a high level.

The benefit of the triangle not demanding a ball dominant pure PG is that you can plug in an oversized guard who can cause problems defensively with his size and length. As well as use his size to contribute to crashing the boards. Preferably with high IQ to make the right reads either with the ball or without it. While Monk probably would be able to come in and contribute within the triangle. I am hoping for something more.

But i have a feeling Monk wont drop to us. It was supreme idiocy to win that Philly game. I am not one for deliberately throwing games, but just missing the last shot in the game would not have hurt anyone.

I'd say Jackson Tatum Ball. Secondary. Fox Issacs Nikita and I think the two latter will be projects

nixluva wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

nixluva wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:Monk disappears too often, and is too short to play the 2 position in the classic triangle at 6'3" and I don't think he's a one. I really like Smith, but not really for the Knicks as I want a bigger PG who can run the O, lead the D, and easily get the ball to KP and Willy.

Name me the 6 top PGs in Phil's championship years using the triangle and lets see if Monk might be able to stack up against the competition.

I don't think Monk is a PG. I think he's a 2.

My point is that Phil using the triangle won a bunch of championships without true starting PGs -- the system simply doesn't require what we think of in terms of pure pci/roll PGs

With a high lotto pick we need a guy that will potentially make others better. I don't see that within Monks game. While his scoring ability might be set. Whe we are as a franchise we need something more.

Monk isn't a pure PG but he has underrated passing ability. He's more of a natural passer than Baker and like Monk Baker was not used as a PG in College.

Not being ASKED to run a team doesn't mean he's unable to do it. The Triangle and even Jeff's style doesn't require a Pure PG. IMO Monk has enough BBIQ and skill to be good as a guard for this team. It's just not a Ball Dominant PG Style. It's VERY SIMPLE and quick reads. More important is the ability to shoot, drive and finish at a high level.

The benefit of the triangle not demanding a ball dominant pure PG is that you can plug in an oversized guard who can cause problems defensively with his size and length. As well as use his size to contribute to crashing the boards. Preferably with high IQ to make the right reads either with the ball or without it. While Monk probably would be able to come in and contribute within the triangle. I am hoping for something more.

This is an offense where most of the time players aren't going to have the ball for very long and no PG is going to have to read the ENTIRE floor. You ideally want good passing at every position and Guards n Wings that can move well without the ball Catch and Shoot, cut and finish at the basket or make a simple pass. This is why Phil has NEVER needed a Pure PG!

Basic passing skills and a WILLINGNESS to pass is more important. In fact the way Monk plays off the ball is a positive in the Triangle. As is being able to shoot from everywhere and drive and finish. Monk would be an upgrade over Rose IMO. I think Monk has more court vision than Rose and of course he shoots better and moves better without the ball. I think he can be developed into a Triangle PG.

But because under the triangle the goal is for the ball to be shared enough through player and ball movement that the ball wont be in his hands as much. Then ideally we would want a player who is exceptional at the little things/intangibles. Like defense, rebounding, hustle plays, leadership etc etc.. All while the triangle motion provides easy scoring opportunities through the constant player and ball movement. The goal is for all 5 players to be able to provide this. Example if your getting 5rebs 5ast from your PG, SG, SF who are all 6-4 to 6-8 with defense, efficient shooting, high IQ ball. Then you are winning.

With Monk your looking at well he can shoot and play off ball and make some good passes. Which is a welcome addition. But I would rather look at a guard who has utility skills. Who maybe with hard work can develop an offensive arsenal. Then a guy with offensive arsenal but has to develop all the rest of his game.

LivingLegend wrote:

TPercy wrote:Dennis Smith. He is simply better at Monk at almost everything. We have to draft on BPA and not on whether the player is a triangle fit or not especially when we know that the player we are drafting will be a part of the cornerstone system we have in place for years to come while the triangle could easily dissapear. What happens after that then?
Its baffling how we are considering giving up a potential all star caliber player to an at best 6th man.

Smith had the ball in his hands 75% of the time at NCS -- how many 30 point games did he put up?

Monk playing off the ball I believe put up 4 +30 point games -- I don't see how Monk is now a 6th man. In fact he could be a top 5 (semi-PG) 4-5 years down the road. I love his wiry, springy body and his incredible balance.