Vmart wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm not a fan of Nilikina at all, the final nail on the coffin for me was when some scouts started saying he wasn't a pg- as a shooting guard he's awful. Doesn't seem to have the basic skill set to be anything other than a bust- he seems like a less athletic second coming of Exum.

I'd prefer Isaac at this point, but I'm curious - can anyone suggest some names we haven't already discussed much? Like that SG in Australia?

Ferguson is someone I wouldn't be to upset at picking. He is from Dallas area and he is big time athlete. His upside is huge due to his ability to create and handle. Measure in at 6-7 ideal sg material. Has a good shooting form will get better as he develops.

Wow he looks like a bust. Id much rather have either Frank Jackson or Diallo on a trade back. Not interested in Ferguson--he looks timid and far far off. Good NBA body --but no goods.

Im not sure where the Knicks are going to go with this---I think they like Nikintina--so I will pull for him. I can understand the concept of wanting to improve your defense BUT the high octane offensive nBA demands you score big to win. Id put F Jackson Nikitina Dennis Smith(no way Fox gets to 8) into a gym for 4 hours and look at their play.

The Lakers Philly Orlando and Sacramento are taking PG's Minny will take Issac or Lauri M--

SupremeCommander wrote:this is just a hunch but I get the feeling the Knicks are going to draft Justin Jackson. We get to choose from the scraps... considering that Phil has said they want 'cerebral players' and Justin Jackson is called a 'cerebral player' in every scouting report I read, I think he's the pick. Plus, he plays Melo's position so if Phil wants to keep putting the pressure on Melo he can do that

I think Phil will look to add another 1st so it's possible he could take a PG later with that added pick.

Cartman718 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:I like Smith, but not for the Knicks. I think he's a bit selfish.

uh oh first i heard of this...can you please explain how..

I think its a fair knock. Smith constantly overdribbles. You see tons of penetration followed by no play so he brings the ball back out. There were times he looked liked Iverson just dribbling all over the damn place until he got a seem to score or make a play. He's got insane quickness but Im not sure how his game translates. He's smaller than Monk and a TO machine as well. If they workout Smith and take him it means he really impressed, most likely with his mouth and what he had to say. He's very untriangle. Over dribble, high usage and small.

got it. i have admittedly not watched enough of him. sounds like viva la france

BRIGGS wrote:

Vmart wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I'm not a fan of Nilikina at all, the final nail on the coffin for me was when some scouts started saying he wasn't a pg- as a shooting guard he's awful. Doesn't seem to have the basic skill set to be anything other than a bust- he seems like a less athletic second coming of Exum.

I'd prefer Isaac at this point, but I'm curious - can anyone suggest some names we haven't already discussed much? Like that SG in Australia?

Ferguson is someone I wouldn't be to upset at picking. He is from Dallas area and he is big time athlete. His upside is huge due to his ability to create and handle. Measure in at 6-7 ideal sg material. Has a good shooting form will get better as he develops.

Wow he looks like a bust. Id much rather have either Frank Jackson or Diallo on a trade back. Not interested in Ferguson--he looks timid and far far off. Good NBA body --but no goods.

Im not sure where the Knicks are going to go with this---I think they like Nikintina--so I will pull for him. I can understand the concept of wanting to improve your defense BUT the high octane offensive nBA demands you score big to win. Id put F Jackson Nikitina Dennis Smith(no way Fox gets to 8) into a gym for 4 hours and look at their play.

The Lakers Philly Orlando and Sacramento are taking PG's Minny will take Issac or Lauri M--

Bust? This guy is athletic and has a shooting stroke plays defense. What more do you want from a player?

codeunknown wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

codeunknown wrote:A string of poor outcomes have put us in a very vulnerable draft position. My board hasn't changed, with the risk/reward drop-off significant after pick 7. At this point, my only preference is to NOT draft Monk - hopefully he goes ahead, leaving any of the top 7 to fall.

1. Markelle Fultz
2. Lonzo Ball
3. Dennis Smith
4. Josh Jackson
5. Jonathan Isaac
6. Jayson Tatum
7. De'aaron Fox
8. Frank Ntilikina
9. Lauri Markaanaen

code! what's up my man? good to see you lurking, this board misses your posting. im in agreement with your big board here, although towards the tail end i'd have monk in there. i'm just curious - what's your hangup with him?

Good to see you still posting as well, nyk.

I tend to veer in the mid-to-high lottery towards the highest potential players with less regard to downside; the difficulty of acquiring these players traditionally through trade or free-agency, combined with the need for these types of players to have a chance of competing at a championship level, shapes my bias there. Defensive ability is equal to offense to me - so guys like Jackson, Isaac, and Ntikilina get a slight boost (although Ntikilina is limited in terms of burst).

This draft was interesting in that the high-potential players (minus the unpredictable late bloomers) extend all the way to 7. So I had my fingers crossed more than usual this time around. My handle on the draft prospects isn't necessarily right - hopefully the knicks analytics on individual prospect on-court multi-tasking, and long term skill development is ahead of the curve. The way Id go about this is with 2 workouts separated by 2 weeks, with prospects tasked to focus on certain plays/abilities.

Monk's deficiency in creating using his handle, is not something I expect to get much better statistically, and his defensive upside is limited because of his size. So I shy away from using a bullet on what I think may be good but not great.

Overall, I'm disappointed. I think the variability in draft order will reduce as we get closer to the draft, and we may be left with slim pickings. Lets see though.. talent is in the eye of the beholder.

solid and understandable take. im pretty disappointed we fell out of the top7, the hopes of fox falling to 7 were probably unrealistic, but at 8, forget about it. the one thing i definitely agree with is your idea about the workouts focusing on certain plays/abilities. i think falling out of the top7 gives phil the ability to draft whoever is left that BEST fits into the triangle.

fishmike wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:I like Smith, but not for the Knicks. I think he's a bit selfish.

uh oh first i heard of this...can you please explain how..

I think its a fair knock. Smith constantly overdribbles. You see tons of penetration followed by no play so he brings the ball back out. There were times he looked liked Iverson just dribbling all over the damn place until he got a seem to score or make a play. He's got insane quickness but Im not sure how his game translates. He's smaller than Monk and a TO machine as well. If they workout Smith and take him it means he really impressed, most likely with his mouth and what he had to say. He's very untriangle. Over dribble, high usage and small.

It would be a mistake to draft simply for the triangle. Phil's days are numbered.

everyone's days are numbered. You pick guys that fit into your vision and style of play.

Or you pick guys that can flat out play. The vision is to win, that's for all teams.

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

fishmike wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:I like Smith, but not for the Knicks. I think he's a bit selfish.

uh oh first i heard of this...can you please explain how..

I think its a fair knock. Smith constantly overdribbles. You see tons of penetration followed by no play so he brings the ball back out. There were times he looked liked Iverson just dribbling all over the damn place until he got a seem to score or make a play. He's got insane quickness but Im not sure how his game translates. He's smaller than Monk and a TO machine as well. If they workout Smith and take him it means he really impressed, most likely with his mouth and what he had to say. He's very untriangle. Over dribble, high usage and small.

It would be a mistake to draft simply for the triangle. Phil's days are numbered.

everyone's days are numbered. You pick guys that fit into your vision and style of play.

Or you pick guys that can flat out play. The vision is to win, that's for all teams.

fwk00 wrote:There's a real risk in getting too myopic about the position you "need" so that it blindsides you to the player you didn't know you needed.

Signature quality statement, here...many layers for analysis.

Much better than this guy:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Donald Rumsfeld

fishmike wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

fishmike wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

PhilinLA wrote:I like Smith, but not for the Knicks. I think he's a bit selfish.

uh oh first i heard of this...can you please explain how..

I think its a fair knock. Smith constantly overdribbles. You see tons of penetration followed by no play so he brings the ball back out. There were times he looked liked Iverson just dribbling all over the damn place until he got a seem to score or make a play. He's got insane quickness but Im not sure how his game translates. He's smaller than Monk and a TO machine as well. If they workout Smith and take him it means he really impressed, most likely with his mouth and what he had to say. He's very untriangle. Over dribble, high usage and small.

It would be a mistake to draft simply for the triangle. Phil's days are numbered.

everyone's days are numbered. You pick guys that fit into your vision and style of play.

Or you pick guys that can flat out play. The vision is to win, that's for all teams.

so what guys who "can flat out play" are not good triangle players?

If a guy can flat out play, the system isn't as vital. You just don't draft for a system, especially for a franchise as shaky as the Knicks. You just go after the best talent. And imo, Smith is probably the BPA at 8. "Tons of penetration followed by no play" is also a likelihood of NC State's lack of talent. His 6'1" size with shoes is taller than Chris Paul, Kemba Walker and Conley although wingspan is an issue.

I thought this was a good read:

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2017/5/17/15639494/nba-draft-2017-scouting-profile-dennis-smith-jr

I'm thinking Scottie Horace Bynum KP

Is there a flop I'm forgetting?