Knicks · 2017 NBA Draft Thread (page 11)
BRIGGS wrote:ky bowman 30 points again . Fastest pg in the ncaa and best 3 point shooter. This guy is a lottery pick no one is close to his 46% 3 pt shooting
No way is he a lotto pick. Is he even on the draft radar at all?
Knixkik wrote:BRIGGS wrote:ky bowman 30 points again . Fastest pg in the ncaa and best 3 point shooter. This guy is a lottery pick no one is close to his 46% 3 pt shootingNo way is he a lotto pick. Is he even on the draft radar at all?
He should be on draft radars. The guy is Tony Parker with a great 3 point shot. Remember I talked about justin patton two months befoe he went from nothing to pick12.
Justin Patton has been on a lot of people's radar. He went from a late 1st to a possible lottery pick.
callmened wrote:he is NOT a lottery pick BRIGGS - calm down. lolJustin Patton has been on a lot of people's radar. He went from a late 1st to a possible lottery pick.
Justin wasnt even on draft boards. Ky Bowman should be. His combination of speed athleticism and 3 point shooting is way up there. Very rare combination of skills that will translate to the NBA. If he was 6-3 not 6-1 you'd already heard about him but hes going to be really really good. He s also had 5 more or more rebounds in 15 games and 4 or more assists in 11. The TO's are slightly high but its the bad team hes on as well. Last night Notre Dame had to switch to an extended zone 2nd half because of Bowman himself. Hes scored 30 or more 40 times against NC Syracuse Notre Dame and Fairfield. But hes doing it efficiently with 50% shooting and 45+% from 3. Hes also a pesk defensively. I say he ends up in the 12-20 range all said and done
#1 Lonzo Ball PG UCLA
#2 Josh Jackson Sf Kansas
#3 Markelle Fultz PG UCLA
#4 DEnnis Smith PG NCST
#5 Jason Tatum SF Duke
#6 John Collins PF WF
#7 Malik Monk G Kentucky
#8 Daron Fox PG Kentucky
#9 Ky Bowman PG Boston College
#10 Justin Patton C Creighton
#11 Lauri Markkanen F 7-0 230
#12 Jonathon Issac F F State
#13 Miles Bridges F Michigan State
#14 Caleb SWanigan PF Purdue
Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
Why do you say that?
It certainly doenst hurt--but for example Derrick Rose is an excellent free throw and mid arange shooter but does not have range on his longer J. Right now if you watch Kentucky hes not even close on a lot of shots--I think he can improve but its going to take multi years. The problem with the NBA is you can take away some speed by playing off a guy and letting him take the longer shot. Ricky Rubio is a good example. Id rather have a guy who I feel can hit that 3 pointer--in fact I almost demand it--its the way of this league.
Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
My #1 target is Fox. After that I like the SF crop. There are some great SF's in Jackson, Isaac, Tatum and Bridges. I just hope Phil can make a deal that adds another 1st rd pick.
Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
I absolutely love this player -- Fox on Knicks running the floor and running high/screen role with KP/Willy would be very nice. Kid defends, rebounds and shot is NOT broken.
Get high upside PG with 1st pick and grab more defensive minded / high energy wing defender with 2nd pick.
BRIGGS wrote:Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
Why do you say that?
It certainly doenst hurt--but for example Derrick Rose is an excellent free throw and mid arange shooter but does not have range on his longer J. Right now if you watch Kentucky hes not even close on a lot of shots--I think he can improve but its going to take multi years. The problem with the NBA is you can take away some speed by playing off a guy and letting him take the longer shot. Ricky Rubio is a good example. Id rather have a guy who I feel can hit that 3 pointer--in fact I almost demand it--its the way of this league.
It's a fact that NBA scouts judge a prospect's shooting potential on free throws. It's not an exact science, but it's an indicator. As opposed to someone like Rondo, who's FT% indicated when he was younger that developing into a good shooter was never going to happen. Fox being a good FT shooter indicates the potential is there. No guarantee of course. I agree that shooting is essential, but it's easy to forget how good a player is when focusing on 1 area. Shooting is the reason Fox probably won't be a top 3-5 pick. But he carries elite attributes with speed, playmaking, defense, and ability to get to the basket that will make him a good NBA player and give him a high floor.
Knixkik wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
Why do you say that?
It certainly doenst hurt--but for example Derrick Rose is an excellent free throw and mid arange shooter but does not have range on his longer J. Right now if you watch Kentucky hes not even close on a lot of shots--I think he can improve but its going to take multi years. The problem with the NBA is you can take away some speed by playing off a guy and letting him take the longer shot. Ricky Rubio is a good example. Id rather have a guy who I feel can hit that 3 pointer--in fact I almost demand it--its the way of this league.It's a fact that NBA scouts judge a prospect's shooting potential on free throws. It's not an exact science, but it's an indicator. As opposed to someone like Rondo, who's FT% indicated when he was younger that developing into a good shooter was never going to happen. Fox being a good FT shooter indicates the potential is there. No guarantee of course. I agree that shooting is essential, but it's easy to forget how good a player is when focusing on 1 area. Shooting is the reason Fox probably won't be a top 3-5 pick. But he carries elite attributes with speed, playmaking, defense, and ability to get to the basket that will make him a good NBA player and give him a high floor.
He has a lot of nice attributes and he reminds me a lot of Ricky Rubio. But Ricky has struggled with that shot and it does effect the team he p[lays on.
BRIGGS wrote:Knixkik wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
Why do you say that?
It certainly doenst hurt--but for example Derrick Rose is an excellent free throw and mid arange shooter but does not have range on his longer J. Right now if you watch Kentucky hes not even close on a lot of shots--I think he can improve but its going to take multi years. The problem with the NBA is you can take away some speed by playing off a guy and letting him take the longer shot. Ricky Rubio is a good example. Id rather have a guy who I feel can hit that 3 pointer--in fact I almost demand it--its the way of this league.It's a fact that NBA scouts judge a prospect's shooting potential on free throws. It's not an exact science, but it's an indicator. As opposed to someone like Rondo, who's FT% indicated when he was younger that developing into a good shooter was never going to happen. Fox being a good FT shooter indicates the potential is there. No guarantee of course. I agree that shooting is essential, but it's easy to forget how good a player is when focusing on 1 area. Shooting is the reason Fox probably won't be a top 3-5 pick. But he carries elite attributes with speed, playmaking, defense, and ability to get to the basket that will make him a good NBA player and give him a high floor.
He has a lot of nice attributes and he reminds me a lot of Ricky Rubio. But Ricky has struggled with that shot and it does effect the team he p[lays on.
Yeah, Rubio is probably his floor, which is still a very good player. Rubio is a poor finisher though, and Fox is a very good finisher. I also think Fox's shot looks more fixable. Rubio has a flat, slow release that doesn't give him much hope. Not the case with Fox, but it will be a concern with him for sure.
Knixkik wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Knixkik wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Knixkik wrote:1 interesting fact about De'Aaron Fox is he is a better free throw shooter than both Ball and Fultz and he gets to the free throw line a ton. Fox is known as a non-shooter, while Ball and Fultz both shoot well from the outside, but free throw shooting is a huge indicator of future improvements in overall shooting, which bodes well for Fox. Fox is highest on my list of realistic targets (outside projected top 5) because his speed, playmaking, and defense are 3 elite skills that we know will translate to the NBA right away. I would rather than a prospect who is elite in some areas and has a couple weaknesses, than someone who is solid in all areas, because sometimes those players who are good in many areas but great in none tend to not translate as well to the NBA.
Why do you say that?
It certainly doenst hurt--but for example Derrick Rose is an excellent free throw and mid arange shooter but does not have range on his longer J. Right now if you watch Kentucky hes not even close on a lot of shots--I think he can improve but its going to take multi years. The problem with the NBA is you can take away some speed by playing off a guy and letting him take the longer shot. Ricky Rubio is a good example. Id rather have a guy who I feel can hit that 3 pointer--in fact I almost demand it--its the way of this league.It's a fact that NBA scouts judge a prospect's shooting potential on free throws. It's not an exact science, but it's an indicator. As opposed to someone like Rondo, who's FT% indicated when he was younger that developing into a good shooter was never going to happen. Fox being a good FT shooter indicates the potential is there. No guarantee of course. I agree that shooting is essential, but it's easy to forget how good a player is when focusing on 1 area. Shooting is the reason Fox probably won't be a top 3-5 pick. But he carries elite attributes with speed, playmaking, defense, and ability to get to the basket that will make him a good NBA player and give him a high floor.
He has a lot of nice attributes and he reminds me a lot of Ricky Rubio. But Ricky has struggled with that shot and it does effect the team he p[lays on.
Yeah, Rubio is probably his floor, which is still a very good player. Rubio is a poor finisher though, and Fox is a very good finisher. I also think Fox's shot looks more fixable. Rubio has a flat, slow release that doesn't give him much hope. Not the case with Fox, but it will be a concern with him for sure.
The NBA becomes a tough place when you are scared to shoot it.
smackeddog wrote:How good are the Pg prospects compared to say Kris Dunn?
All 5 of them are considered much better prospects. Dunn is already 23 years old. He might not crack the lottery in this draft.
Knixkik wrote:smackeddog wrote:How good are the Pg prospects compared to say Kris Dunn?All 5 of them are considered much better prospects. Dunn is already 23 years old. He might not crack the lottery in this draft.
Thanks!
BRIGGS wrote:My lottery as of now#1 Lonzo Ball PG UCLA
#2 Josh Jackson Sf Kansas
#3 Markelle Fultz PG UCLA
#4 John Collins PF/C Wake Forest
#5 DEnnis Smith PG NCST
#6 Malik Monk G Kentucky
#7 Justin Patton C Creighton
#8 Daron Fox PG Kentucky
#9 Ky Bowman PG Boston College
#10 Jason Tatum F Duke
#11 Lauri Markkanen F 7-0 230
#12 Jonathon Issac F F State
#13 Miles Bridges F Michigan State
#14 Caleb SWanigan PF Purdue
the more I see of Josh Jackson, the more I am highly impressed. I feel he would be a great fit next to KP and Willy going forward. His passing is incredible.
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Josh...
Have to say, I've seen Lonzo Ball a few times now and other than the range on his shot, I haven't been impressed by him. I feel he's a little overrated.
If we stay in 6-10 range, I think Fox should be the target. But I'd love to get up to the top 5 ranger and have a crack at Josh Jackson or Markelle Fultz - those are the two can't miss stars of this draft IMHO.
I like Fox and Monk a lot though.
I'm curious about Frank Ntilikina - from what I've seen of him, he looks very promising, too.