Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Two take aways: A PG that can't shoot is a problem
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/philly...off_Drexel.html

I don't want Fox. PG who can't shoot ARE a problem!
D Rock
This guy sounds like me.

I'm leaning Monk at this point. Either at 3 or a trade back with Sacto.

But I say Isaac and perhaps Smith have higher upside, but that upside comes with more question marks.

When your greatest single need is shooting, you don't pass on the best pure shooter in the draft since Klay Thompson. Especially if he comes with the ability to be a + defender on opposing PGs, plays off-ball yet can work as a secondary ball handler, and has elite athleticism to run in the open floor with Simmons.

Monk is on paper, the perfect fit. Everybody complains about his 6'3" size, but somehow Fox is just fine at 6'4". That's a big inch.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jun 11 2017, 12:23 PM) *
This guy sounds like me.

I'm leaning Monk at this point. Either at 3 or a trade back with Sacto.

But I say Isaac and perhaps Smith have higher upside, but that upside comes with more question marks.

When your greatest single need is shooting, you don't pass on the best pure shooter in the draft since Klay Thompson. Especially if he comes with the ability to be a + defender on opposing PGs, plays off-ball yet can work as a secondary ball handler, and has elite athleticism to run in the open floor with Simmons.

Monk is on paper, the perfect fit. Everybody complains about his 6'3" size, but somehow Fox is just fine at 6'4". That's a big inch.


I would trade down with SAC to get the 5&10 for 3 and either Stauskas, or Henderson or our two later 2nds. I take Monk with the 5th pick and I trade the 10 th pick for an average or better starter veteran at a position of need. I try to hold on to Holmes as Embiid injury protection.

However, in order to do that, I would need to be OK with at least three prospects that are on the board at #3 to guarantee I get someone I am OK with. If that's not the case, I trade no further that 4, or I just pick Monk at 3 outright. Whether it's Fultz - Ball or Fultz Jackson, as long as I'm ok with three players, I do the deal. For me, my three are Monk, Jackson and Isaac. I'm not a Smith, Fox or Nitilinka guy. If it is SAC and they want Fox at 3, that's a no brainer. However, if There are only two I want, I may shy away.

I would think the 10th gets the deal done for a solid starter, no?
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 11 2017, 08:56 PM) *
I would trade down with SAC to get the 5&10 for 3 and either Stauskas, or Henderson or our two later 2nds. I take Monk with the 5th pick and I trade the 10 th pick for an average or better starter veteran at a position of need. I try to hold on to Holmes as Embiid injury protection.

However, in order to do that, I would need to be OK with at least three prospects that are on the board at #3 to guarantee I get someone I am OK with. If that's not the case, I trade no further that 4, or I just pick Monk at 3 outright. Whether it's Fultz - Ball or Fultz Jackson, as long as I'm ok with three players, I do the deal. For me, my three are Monk, Jackson and Isaac. I'm not a Smith, Fox or Nitilinka guy. If it is SAC and they want Fox at 3, that's a no brainer. However, if There are only two I want, I may shy away.

I would think the 10th gets the deal done for a solid starter, no?

I'm with you on trading down and taking Monk at 5. No brainer.

I hold onto the 10th however, and go BPA. I'm not sure who you could shake lose with #10 as a trade chip. I'm of the belief that what you want from a trade with #10, has to come from free agency. Again, I'm all in on JJ Redick.

While Holmes is a nice player as a 2nd round pick, let's not kid ourselves. He falls WELL short of "Embiid Insurance." He's a fine #2 center. But as a starter, you'd have to consider that spot a major hole.

I also agree that I'd be OK with taking Monk at 3. For me, the worst case scenario would be landing Tatum.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jun 11 2017, 05:54 PM) *
I'm with you on trading down and taking Monk at 5. No brainer.

I hold onto the 10th however, and go BPA. I'm not sure who you could shake lose with #10 as a trade chip. I'm of the belief that what you want from a trade with #10, has to come from free agency. Again, I'm all in on JJ Redick.

While Holmes is a nice player as a 2nd round pick, let's not kid ourselves. He falls WELL short of "Embiid Insurance." He's a fine #2 center. But as a starter, you'd have to consider that spot a major hole.

I also agree that I'd be OK with taking Monk at 3. For me, the worst case scenario would be landing Tatum.

You and I differed on getting the LAL pick. You didn't want it because of assimilating two rookies plus Simmons. Why no concern with it now where we'd
Be in the same spot.
D Rock
Being fine with having the pick not convey this season, because we'd get it unprotected next season... is a different animal than having it convey unprotected next season AND getting a 2nd lottery pick this season.

Where we differ is in the value of next years unprotected lakers pick. It'll be top 5 again. You can take that to the bank.
Joegrane
Why do you think that? Why wouldn't they fill some holes with mediocre FAs to make the team more competitive and sell some extra tickets. They won't sign anyone who will keep their young core from developing, just fill holes.

QUOTE (D Rock @ Jun 11 2017, 11:09 PM) *
Being fine with having the pick not convey this season, because we'd get it unprotected next season... is a different animal than having it convey unprotected next season AND getting a 2nd lottery pick this season.

Where we differ is in the value of next years unprotected lakers pick. It'll be top 5 again. You can take that to the bank.

D Rock
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jun 13 2017, 03:47 AM) *
Why do you think that? Why wouldn't they fill some holes with mediocre FAs to make the team more competitive and sell some extra tickets. They won't sign anyone who will keep their young core from developing, just fill holes.

I think their "young core" is made of fool's gold. While getting Jahlil left us with little in the end, I'd rather have the problems he presents than De'angelo Russel. Ingram is still 3-4 years away. Randel is a player, but no where near a guy you build a team around. Add to that the laughable contracts of Deng and Mosgov, and their cap is a mess to boot.

Sure, they could sign some mid level free agents. But they did that last year with Deng and Mosgov (see laughable cap restraints when they panicked and realized players no longer gave a shit about "LaLa Land"). I would suggest that the Sixers are a significantly more attractive destination for a potential free agent than the Lakers are at the present moment. I like Walton. As a Sixers fan, I hate Magic. But, players love him. Players also know that they're years behind us when it comes to building a roster.

Bottom line, that roster is filled with fool's gold, head cases, and question marks. That unprotected pick next year is a stone cold lock for the top 10. And I'd bet it ends up top 5. With the current CBA, that shit is NBA GOLD!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.