Knicks · Frank Ntilikina: Is he the perfect triangle PG? (page 2)

I am trying to think of young players that succeeded in the triangle for their first few years and all I can come up with is Bynum, Armstrong and H. Grant.

It is possible that by the time Ntilikina picks up the triangle that Phil and the triangle will be gone. So, is it smart to draft a player based on an offense that might not be played in the long run.

IMO,The need to do an entire evaluation and not Triangle specific.

yellowboy90 wrote:I am trying to think of young players that succeeded in the triangle for their first few years and all I can come up with is Bynum, Armstrong and H. Grant.

It is possible that by the time Ntilikina picks up the triangle that Phil and the triangle will be gone. So, is it smart to draft a player based on an offense that might not be played in the long run.

IMO,The need to do an entire evaluation and not Triangle specific.

Agreed. It wouldn't be smart to draft based on the triangle. But I think of it as an added perk. Frank might be the BPA regardless of triangle fit in the 7-10 range. He's probably underrated due to lack of exposure and strength of the drsft. He is a pure PG with size, shoots the ball well, and has the best defensive potential of the PG crop. After watching rose all year, I want a pg that can pass and defend to grow with KP.

He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Do you mean that as a good thing or a bad thing?

knicks dont run the triangle that much and im happy about that this yr. maybe about 30% of the time

the issue with ntilikina is that NONE of us are able to watch a full game. were just relying on highlights and becoming youtube scouts. with said, hes an intriguing prospect. im not sure if hes simply a SG with a good passing IQ - or a PG who is able to create his own shot. i dont know if hes a NATURAL passer even though he makes good passing decisions.

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Yeah they do look a lot alike physically, although their game's are polar opposites.

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Yeah they do look a lot alike physically, although their game's are polar opposites.

Not really---games look similar although Jamal looks better--way better handle

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Yeah they do look a lot alike physically, although their game's are polar opposites.

Not really---games look similar although Jamal looks better--way better handle

Jamal Crawford is 6'6 with a 7 foot wingspan and can guard 3 positions on the wing?

I always liked Jamal but I never saw THAT

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Yeah they do look a lot alike physically, although their game's are polar opposites.

Not really---games look similar although Jamal looks better--way better handle

Crawford was never a defender or pure PG. He was a scoring combo guard from the beginning of time. Ntilikina is not a scoring guard. He is known for being unselfish to a fault, elite defensively, and plays within the offense. Literally exact opposite of Crawford other than their height and build.

fishmike wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Yeah they do look a lot alike physically, although their game's are polar opposites.

Not really---games look similar although Jamal looks better--way better handle

Jamal Crawford is 6'6 with a 7 foot wingspan and can guard 3 positions on the wing?

I always liked Jamal but I never saw THAT

Jamal was a high level recruit top 10. Im not sure about the defense because both would have to play against men who are MUCH bigger than either one. Im skeptical that at his size he could guard a 3 a 3 in the nBA is 6-8 230. No way could he guard that. Even a pro 2 guard has 50 pounds on him.

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He looks like Jamal Crawford when he was at Michigan

Yeah they do look a lot alike physically, although their game's are polar opposites.

Not really---games look similar although Jamal looks better--way better handle

Jamal Crawford is 6'6 with a 7 foot wingspan and can guard 3 positions on the wing?

I always liked Jamal but I never saw THAT

Jamal was a high level recruit top 10. Im not sure about the defense because both would have to play against men who are MUCH bigger than either one. Im skeptical that at his size he could guard a 3 a 3 in the nBA is 6-8 230. No way could he guard that. Even a pro 2 guard has 50 pounds on him.

Well he's 18. When Lebron came into the NBA even he struggled at the D at first. He's got to fill out. We are talking about a prospect. If you thought I was suggesting ANY 18 year old is coming into the NBA and defending these guys well you are wrong. I am talking about potential, however this guy is KNOWN for being a tough defender and someone who works hard at that end of the floor. I dont think Jamal ever had that.

This guy is much more like Shaun Livinston or Larry Hughes or Rondo with a jumper. A guy who bothers you with length.

yellowboy90 wrote:I am trying to think of young players that succeeded in the triangle for their first few years and all I can come up with is Bynum, Armstrong and H. Grant.

It is possible that by the time Ntilikina picks up the triangle that Phil and the triangle will be gone. So, is it smart to draft a player based on an offense that might not be played in the long run.

IMO,The need to do an entire evaluation and not Triangle specific.

So this is still the strangest type of logic to me and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Drop the label Triangle and tell me if you still thing this holds:

We would like a player who moves well without the ball, doesn't hold the ball, cuts hard, knows how to pass and finds the open man, reads and reacts well to defenses. Who wouldn't want that type of player?

Just because everyone HATES the Triangle, and I'd gander that most who do wouldn't be able to even recognize the Triangle outside of a few obvious sets, you also don't like a player who would succeed in it? That's just odd logic to me

martin wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I am trying to think of young players that succeeded in the triangle for their first few years and all I can come up with is Bynum, Armstrong and H. Grant.

It is possible that by the time Ntilikina picks up the triangle that Phil and the triangle will be gone. So, is it smart to draft a player based on an offense that might not be played in the long run.

IMO,The need to do an entire evaluation and not Triangle specific.

So this is still the strangest type of logic to me and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Drop the label Triangle and tell me if you still thing this holds:

We would like a player who moves well without the ball, doesn't hold the ball, cuts hard, knows how to pass and finds the open man, reads and reacts well to defenses. Who wouldn't want that type of player?

Just because everyone HATES the Triangle, and I'd gander that most who do wouldn't be able to even recognize the Triangle outside of a few obvious sets, you also don't like a player who would succeed in it? That's just odd logic to me

That's great for every player almost exept a point guard. They need the ball in their hands more and has to have the ability to run a team. My point was what good would it do drafting a pg that fits the qualities you describe but lacks the ability to play high level PnR basketball and can't run a team? What happens to this pg when Phil is gone and he will be pressed in to handling the ball more and running the team like guards in other offenses?

Josh Hart is probably the closest triangle guard in the draft and he is a two guard that is playing as a 3 man. Phil would have to hope he has some Malcolm Brogdon in him.

Now that I think of it Milwaukee would be the best team to implement the triangle.

yellowboy90 wrote:

martin wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I am trying to think of young players that succeeded in the triangle for their first few years and all I can come up with is Bynum, Armstrong and H. Grant.

It is possible that by the time Ntilikina picks up the triangle that Phil and the triangle will be gone. So, is it smart to draft a player based on an offense that might not be played in the long run.

IMO,The need to do an entire evaluation and not Triangle specific.

So this is still the strangest type of logic to me and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Drop the label Triangle and tell me if you still thing this holds:

We would like a player who moves well without the ball, doesn't hold the ball, cuts hard, knows how to pass and finds the open man, reads and reacts well to defenses. Who wouldn't want that type of player?

Just because everyone HATES the Triangle, and I'd gander that most who do wouldn't be able to even recognize the Triangle outside of a few obvious sets, you also don't like a player who would succeed in it? That's just odd logic to me

That's great for every player almost exept a point guard. They need the ball in their hands more and has to have the ability to run a team. My point was what good would it do drafting a pg that fits the qualities you describe but lacks the ability to play high level PnR basketball and can't run a team? What happens to this pg when Phil is gone and he will be pressed in to handling the ball more and running the team like guards in other offenses?

Josh Hart is probably the closest triangle guard in the draft and he is a two guard that is playing as a 3 man. Phil would have to hope he has some Malcolm Brogdon in him.

Now that I think of it Milwaukee would be the best team to implement the triangle.

Do you really think that that's what the Knicks are looking for? A PG that can't do high level PnR and/or lacks the ability to organize an offense? It's EXACTLY what they were hoping to get out of Rose but he can't run an offense (or pass).

martin wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

martin wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I am trying to think of young players that succeeded in the triangle for their first few years and all I can come up with is Bynum, Armstrong and H. Grant.

It is possible that by the time Ntilikina picks up the triangle that Phil and the triangle will be gone. So, is it smart to draft a player based on an offense that might not be played in the long run.

IMO,The need to do an entire evaluation and not Triangle specific.

So this is still the strangest type of logic to me and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Drop the label Triangle and tell me if you still thing this holds:

We would like a player who moves well without the ball, doesn't hold the ball, cuts hard, knows how to pass and finds the open man, reads and reacts well to defenses. Who wouldn't want that type of player?

Just because everyone HATES the Triangle, and I'd gander that most who do wouldn't be able to even recognize the Triangle outside of a few obvious sets, you also don't like a player who would succeed in it? That's just odd logic to me

That's great for every player almost exept a point guard. They need the ball in their hands more and has to have the ability to run a team. My point was what good would it do drafting a pg that fits the qualities you describe but lacks the ability to play high level PnR basketball and can't run a team? What happens to this pg when Phil is gone and he will be pressed in to handling the ball more and running the team like guards in other offenses?

Josh Hart is probably the closest triangle guard in the draft and he is a two guard that is playing as a 3 man. Phil would have to hope he has some Malcolm Brogdon in him.

Now that I think of it Milwaukee would be the best team to implement the triangle.

Do you really think that that's what the Knicks are looking for? A PG that can't do high level PnR and/or lacks the ability to organize an offense? It's EXACTLY what they were hoping to get out of Rose but he can't run an offense (or pass).

I don't know what Phil would do because his actions and words contradicts themselves. He let Chandler go because he wasn't a good fit then the next summer talked about how they wanted a Tyson Chandler type Center. He talks about Grant having issues shooting then goes out and get two Pgs that haven't shot well their entire careers.

Also, if they watched the tape or Rose after injury they would've know he lacked the ability to organize an offense and lacked high level passing ability out of the PnR.