Knicks · Chad Ford: Mock Draft 6.1: New picks for Knicks, Sixers in top-10 shakeup (page 2)
BigDaddyG wrote:and the sleeper is DMitchell who's combine scores show he's got the physical tools to be an NBA stopper as well. He's already played that role for Pitino, and if he shows some PG skills he's going to be really high on the list as well.fishmike wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Frank N also... Frank's stats dont impress but remember he had to play mistake free or lose his minutes. Im starting to really hope we take Frank. Not because I want him, I know what you guys know, but if the Knicks take him it means they are that high on him and I have some faith in their scouting. A true stopper in the backcourt with skills is tantalizing. With his size he could be a PG type who can defend 3 spots. Thats a blue chip piece.Chandler wrote:for the college basketball fans, draft nerds, which candidates (at 8) are the smartest on the court. Good decisions, good passers?
In terms of IQ, it's probably Kennard. But I feel he's a reach for the lottery.I'm high on Frank also. KPs stats were underwhelming when he played in Europe at the same age. The fact that he get significant minutes and shoes improvement is the big thing. This kids decision making out of the PnR, off the ball etc. is solid. Plus, his physical growth. He's a guy you can plugin now and expect a contribution w/o worrying about offensive-defensive substitutions. I worry if Monk can even guard PGs. Can he be trusted to cover SGs in late game situations? Is his offense going to be so potential that you can live with it?
Thats what makes this draft tough--can Kennard play lead guard or combo in the triangle--the guy is going to be an elite NBA 3 point shooter--he rebounded the ball very well at Duke and was a good passer. Can he play PG at nearly 6-6?
DSJ has some issues for me but his talent is unquestionable. I still view his upside higher than Nitty who has all the measureables but I'm not that sure he has as high a ceiling as a lead player.
nixluva wrote:Of the guys likely to be there at 8 I'd rank them Isaac, Monk, DSJ and then Nitty. I'd prefer Isaac cuz I think there are more quality guards later in the draft. If Isaac is gone I'd put Monk next. People are seriously underestimating his talent level. I warn not to base too much on how he looked at UK! Monk has even more upside than he showed. He's not 1 dimensional as some assume.DSJ has some issues for me but his talent is unquestionable. I still view his upside higher than Nitty who has all the measureables but I'm not that sure he has as high a ceiling as a lead player.
I'm kind of in this camp. there are a lot of intriguing players in this draft but to my (amateur) scouting eye Monk and DSJ have shown the most electricity at moments.
I'm very intrigued by Nitty and Isaac but more because of their length and what seems to be genetically-ingrained team play
BigRedDog wrote:I can see Philly trading with Sac #3 for #5 and #10. Sac gets Fox at 3, Philly gets Monk or whoever they like at #5 plus #10 pick. Supposedly Sac really likes Fox
If Sac does that then they need to clean house. While that is the perfect move for Philly.
BRIGGS wrote:Kennard wowed NBA scouts and GMs at his pro day, putting on an epic 3-point display and showing more athleticism than scouts thought he had a Duke (the Lakers recorded him with a 38.5-inch max vertical at his workout).Thats what makes this draft tough--can Kennard play lead guard or combo in the triangle--the guy is going to be an elite NBA 3 point shooter--he rebounded the ball very well at Duke and was a good passer. Can he play PG at nearly 6-6?
If we have a second pick or trade down, I take him.
I think Kennard would fit.
With we take Ntilikina with one pick and Kennard with another, that's a great draft IMO.
I hope Mills is talking to teams about trading Melo. If we deal Melo, get some assets, re-direct those assets for a pick, we can end up with two top 12-14 prospects in the draft.
Luke's stock has elevated, he may be the 2nd Duke drafted.
He's not a point guard, he's a shooter, and a shooting guard. A scorer. I'm on board, but not at 8.
nixluva wrote:Of the guys likely to be there at 8 I'd rank them Isaac, Monk, DSJ and then Nitty. I'd prefer Isaac cuz I think there are more quality guards later in the draft. If Isaac is gone I'd put Monk next. People are seriously underestimating his talent level. I warn not to base too much on how he looked at UK! Monk has even more upside than he showed. He's not 1 dimensional as some assume.this is just silly. You have seen them workout? Frank probably has the highest upside. Your talking about a PG who could defend 3 positions, has a great 3 and at 18 plays mistake free ball in a pro men's league. I think if Frank's athletic scores are comparable to the other guards there is no way his ceiling is lower. Dude is 6'6 with a 7'1 wingspan and skilled.. and its his skills that have scouts impressed. When Frank played against similar age competition he was the best player in the tourney and put on a show.DSJ has some issues for me but his talent is unquestionable. I still view his upside higher than Nitty who has all the measureables but I'm not that sure he has as high a ceiling as a lead player.
yellowboy90 wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:reub wrote:The fact that we didn't work out DSJr. seems to be some Phil misdirection. Smith could be our guy if this scenario is true.
Possible but a high usage super athletic point guard is usually not Phil's cup of tea, especially after the failed DRose experiment.
We also have Phil's statement.
Saying he is not looking for a player that can jump out of the building or make those super athletic plays, triple doubles.
He wants a skill player.I don't think we are looking at DSJ. I feel for us it's coming down to Ntilikina, Monk, Lauri.
That statement is idiotic because it takes skills to get triple doubles.
I know, wasn't Phil's best statement, but from what I understood of it, he's not looking for a super athletic high usage point guard that monopolizes the ball. I think the DRose failure this past year has almost certainly proven that Phil's type of style of play and a point guard like that do not mesh. Look at all of Jackson's title teams, not one of them had an athletic, ball dominant, point guard on it. I would be highly surprised (in a good way) if we took DSJ, because he has talent. I really want a guard that has major talent to be matched up with KP/Willy.I know Phil's preference but I'm afraid his preference will not be the best for the team. Also , people categorize Smith as a high ish player but he had a lower usg% than Fox yet had a way better ast%. I think your last statement says it best, the Knicks need a guard to match up with KP/Willy. They need a guard that has range and can go to the whole so it draws help from the big leaving KP/Willy open. This draft is not about the next two years but the next 8-10 yrs.
Lastly, Dennis is a smart guy which is always a nice a tribute for any player.
I need to see the Phil Jackson quote again but I don't remember him talking about triple doubles. I'm pretty sure the comment was more about him admitting his mistake with believing in Derek Rose and Brandon Jennings.
newyorknewyork wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:reub wrote:The fact that we didn't work out DSJr. seems to be some Phil misdirection. Smith could be our guy if this scenario is true.
Possible but a high usage super athletic point guard is usually not Phil's cup of tea, especially after the failed DRose experiment.
We also have Phil's statement.
Saying he is not looking for a player that can jump out of the building or make those super athletic plays, triple doubles.
He wants a skill player.I don't think we are looking at DSJ. I feel for us it's coming down to Ntilikina, Monk, Lauri.
That statement is idiotic because it takes skills to get triple doubles.
I know, wasn't Phil's best statement, but from what I understood of it, he's not looking for a super athletic high usage point guard that monopolizes the ball. I think the DRose failure this past year has almost certainly proven that Phil's type of style of play and a point guard like that do not mesh. Look at all of Jackson's title teams, not one of them had an athletic, ball dominant, point guard on it. I would be highly surprised (in a good way) if we took DSJ, because he has talent. I really want a guard that has major talent to be matched up with KP/Willy.I know Phil's preference but I'm afraid his preference will not be the best for the team. Also , people categorize Smith as a high ish player but he had a lower usg% than Fox yet had a way better ast%. I think your last statement says it best, the Knicks need a guard to match up with KP/Willy. They need a guard that has range and can go to the whole so it draws help from the big leaving KP/Willy open. This draft is not about the next two years but the next 8-10 yrs.
Lastly, Dennis is a smart guy which is always a nice a tribute for any player.
I need to see the Phil Jackson quote again but I don't remember him talking about triple doubles. I'm pretty sure the comment was more about him admitting his mistake with believing in Derek Rose and Brandon Jennings.
i'll try to find it but he did say triple doubles.
edit: That didn't take long.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/16/everything-...
“We know what we want, and we are interested in developing that and turning away from just say this guy can jump out of the gym, this guy can do a triple-double game or dunk the ball,’’ Jackson said. “That is not what we are interested in. We are interested in skill players that know how to play together in team form.”
BRIGGS wrote:Kennard wowed NBA scouts and GMs at his pro day, putting on an epic 3-point display and showing more athleticism than scouts thought he had a Duke (the Lakers recorded him with a 38.5-inch max vertical at his workout).Thats what makes this draft tough--can Kennard play lead guard or combo in the triangle--the guy is going to be an elite NBA 3 point shooter--he rebounded the ball very well at Duke and was a good passer. Can he play PG at nearly 6-6?
Max verts mean little to me in regards to athleticism. I am more impressed with agility and quickness then how high a player can jump.
yellowboy90 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:reub wrote:The fact that we didn't work out DSJr. seems to be some Phil misdirection. Smith could be our guy if this scenario is true.
Possible but a high usage super athletic point guard is usually not Phil's cup of tea, especially after the failed DRose experiment.
We also have Phil's statement.
Saying he is not looking for a player that can jump out of the building or make those super athletic plays, triple doubles.
He wants a skill player.I don't think we are looking at DSJ. I feel for us it's coming down to Ntilikina, Monk, Lauri.
That statement is idiotic because it takes skills to get triple doubles.
I know, wasn't Phil's best statement, but from what I understood of it, he's not looking for a super athletic high usage point guard that monopolizes the ball. I think the DRose failure this past year has almost certainly proven that Phil's type of style of play and a point guard like that do not mesh. Look at all of Jackson's title teams, not one of them had an athletic, ball dominant, point guard on it. I would be highly surprised (in a good way) if we took DSJ, because he has talent. I really want a guard that has major talent to be matched up with KP/Willy.I know Phil's preference but I'm afraid his preference will not be the best for the team. Also , people categorize Smith as a high ish player but he had a lower usg% than Fox yet had a way better ast%. I think your last statement says it best, the Knicks need a guard to match up with KP/Willy. They need a guard that has range and can go to the whole so it draws help from the big leaving KP/Willy open. This draft is not about the next two years but the next 8-10 yrs.
Lastly, Dennis is a smart guy which is always a nice a tribute for any player.
I need to see the Phil Jackson quote again but I don't remember him talking about triple doubles. I'm pretty sure the comment was more about him admitting his mistake with believing in Derek Rose and Brandon Jennings.
i'll try to find it but he did say triple doubles.
edit: That didn't take long.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/16/everything-...“We know what we want, and we are interested in developing that and turning away from just say this guy can jump out of the gym, this guy can do a triple-double game or dunk the ball,’’ Jackson said. “That is not what we are interested in. We are interested in skill players that know how to play together in team form.”
I was trying to find his quote and could. What keywords did you use lol.
Anyway, I doubt he would pass on a Jason Kidd type of triple double player. Or a LeBron James or a Scottie Pippen or Lamar Odom. I think he was just talking about style over substance. Guys who get numbers but cant play team basketball. Derek Rose put up 17-4-4 last season on something like 48fg%. Which seems like a good season on the outside.
On a side note. The Jason Kidd who won a chip with Dallas. But a younger version is exactly the type of player we need. Along with a Shawn Marion type.
yellowboy90 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Kennard wowed NBA scouts and GMs at his pro day, putting on an epic 3-point display and showing more athleticism than scouts thought he had a Duke (the Lakers recorded him with a 38.5-inch max vertical at his workout).Thats what makes this draft tough--can Kennard play lead guard or combo in the triangle--the guy is going to be an elite NBA 3 point shooter--he rebounded the ball very well at Duke and was a good passer. Can he play PG at nearly 6-6?
Max verts mean little to me in regards to athleticism. I am more impressed with agility and quickness then how high a player can jump.
You seem to follow college ball a lot so let me ask you. William Nigel Gross. He tested #1 in lane agility drills. Yet on his scouting report one of his big flaws was lateral quickness and ability to defend the quicker guards. His skill set, production, & measurements jump out though.
fishmike wrote:nixluva wrote:Of the guys likely to be there at 8 I'd rank them Isaac, Monk, DSJ and then Nitty. I'd prefer Isaac cuz I think there are more quality guards later in the draft. If Isaac is gone I'd put Monk next. People are seriously underestimating his talent level. I warn not to base too much on how he looked at UK! Monk has even more upside than he showed. He's not 1 dimensional as some assume.this is just silly. You have seen them workout? Frank probably has the highest upside. Your talking about a PG who could defend 3 positions, has a great 3 and at 18 plays mistake free ball in a pro men's league. I think if Frank's athletic scores are comparable to the other guards there is no way his ceiling is lower. Dude is 6'6 with a 7'1 wingspan and skilled.. and its his skills that have scouts impressed. When Frank played against similar age competition he was the best player in the tourney and put on a show.DSJ has some issues for me but his talent is unquestionable. I still view his upside higher than Nitty who has all the measureables but I'm not that sure he has as high a ceiling as a lead player.
I've watched extended game footage and just based on what I see I don't put Ntilikina in the same category as the other top players in terms of upside. He doesn't jump off the tape enough for me. Monk without question has that it factor as a lead scorer if needed and he's also a good defender. Of course I'm not in workouts and no one has gotten to work him out yet. We'll see what reports say.
I might remind you I have Nitty ON MY LIST of guys to pick so it's not like I said I wouldn't draft him 😁
BigRedDog wrote:I can see Philly trading with Sac #3 for #5 and #10. Sac gets Fox at 3, Philly gets Monk or whoever they like at #5 plus #10 pick. Supposedly Sac really likes FoxI just read a sixers chat where it was suggested that if Philly trades with Sac they might look to move the 10th pick with Okafor for the 7th or 8th pick.
newyorknewyork wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Kennard wowed NBA scouts and GMs at his pro day, putting on an epic 3-point display and showing more athleticism than scouts thought he had a Duke (the Lakers recorded him with a 38.5-inch max vertical at his workout).Thats what makes this draft tough--can Kennard play lead guard or combo in the triangle--the guy is going to be an elite NBA 3 point shooter--he rebounded the ball very well at Duke and was a good passer. Can he play PG at nearly 6-6?
Max verts mean little to me in regards to athleticism. I am more impressed with agility and quickness then how high a player can jump.
You seem to follow college ball a lot so let me ask you. William Nigel Gross. He tested #1 in lane agility drills. Yet on his scouting report one of his big flaws was lateral quickness and ability to defend the quicker guards. His skill set, production, & measurements jump out though.
Yeah, I didn't see that type of quickness from the little I saw from Gross. I look for numbers to match what I see on the floor not reveal something new. These athletes pay a lot of money to people to train them for these athletic tests so stuff like that doesn't really mean much to me. Especially when a lot of the kids tested are still maturing and growing.
On the Phil quote:
I had a hard time finding it at 1st but I was using yahoo. After I switched to Google I just put in (Phil Jackson Knicks triple doubles) and it came right up.
CrushAlot wrote:BigRedDog wrote:I can see Philly trading with Sac #3 for #5 and #10. Sac gets Fox at 3, Philly gets Monk or whoever they like at #5 plus #10 pick. Supposedly Sac really likes FoxI just read a sixers chat where it was suggested that if Philly trades with Sac they might look to move the 10th pick with Okafor for the 7th or 8th pick.
If I was the Knicks I would definitely jump at that deal.
BigRedDog wrote:CrushAlot wrote:BigRedDog wrote:I can see Philly trading with Sac #3 for #5 and #10. Sac gets Fox at 3, Philly gets Monk or whoever they like at #5 plus #10 pick. Supposedly Sac really likes FoxI just read a sixers chat where it was suggested that if Philly trades with Sac they might look to move the 10th pick with Okafor for the 7th or 8th pick.If I was the Knicks I would definitely jump at that deal.
Seems to good to be true, but I'm all for the general idea. I'd prefer something other than-he's to similar to Willy- but I'd be happy with some 2nd rounders.