Malik Monk

[Marcus]

We can talk to our face turns blue. Love this prospect or that prospect but outside of LeBron James, MJ, and guys like that. Most of these guys need the right situation to become the best version of themselves as possible.

I was actually thinking about this on the drive into work this morning. I think a closer look should be put into how a player fits onto a team outside of just how talented a kid is. Not everybody can be the KD, Bron, Giannis type of player where it likely wont matter where you put them they're ability is gonna work regardless. We have to look at these kids in terms of that role player fit. Can't roll the ball out to every prospect and say go get it. I felt that way about a few prospects and it didn't work out so far due to fit. But that needs to be factored in as well. What are the strengths of these kids and how will that work with team 1 - 32 with the current personnel on said team.


Also just to piggyback on something else i said in regards to Monk. Is there much difference between what he brings to the table and what Allonzo Trier brings? Switch their situations and what do we have?

There is a massive difference. Trier would be terrible if he had to be accounted for. Right now, he can play his game. Trier for the Knicks is doing what his skill-set offers. That's why he looks like a steal compared to Trier at Arizona who looked like a scrub.

As for Monk, he needs the right system and personnel to play his game. Right now, he can only partially play his game. Considering some of his flaws, this is a severe issue as he doesn't have a strong base which is typical of boom or bust types. Monk could be extremely effective in the ideal situation right now while in a situation that's average to bad, could look worse than Trier to some people.

For me, it's all about three things when it comes to can this player fit anywhere.

1. Base - some guys with weak bases have great situational value like Klay Thompson, D. Mitchell, Bradley Beal, K. Leonard and the other side of it which failed is O.J. Mayo, Elfrid Payton, Lonzo Ball, Nik Stauskas, Darko, etc.

2. Who's around them - The better the personnel who fits the better the prospect.

3. What is it they extremely well and can it translate? If it doesn't, bust kingdom, here they come

how much of this will you be factoring into future draft discussions. I'm starting to see it as a huge thing when we talk about talent compared to fit. So where kid a might be clearly more talented than kid b, if the kid has boom or bust potential dependent on fit and kid b has translatable role player in every way floor being just a solid fit for your system and ceiling being or 2nd or third most important player but never your focal point is it worth it to go with kid b.

[King Ken]

I was actually thinking about this on the drive into work this morning. I think a closer look should be put into how a player fits onto a team outside of just how talented a kid is. Not everybody can be the KD, Bron, Giannis type of player where it likely wont matter where you put them they're ability is gonna work regardless. We have to look at these kids in terms of that role player fit. Can't roll the ball out to every prospect and say go get it. I felt that way about a few prospects and it didn't work out so far due to fit. But that needs to be factored in as well. What are the strengths of these kids and how will that work with team 1 - 32 with the current personnel on said team.


Also just to piggyback on something else i said in regards to Monk. Is there much difference between what he brings to the table and what Allonzo Trier brings? Switch their situations and what do we have?

There is a massive difference. Trier would be terrible if he had to be accounted for. Right now, he can play his game. Trier for the Knicks is doing what his skill-set offers. That's why he looks like a steal compared to Trier at Arizona who looked like a scrub.

As for Monk, he needs the right system and personnel to play his game. Right now, he can only partially play his game. Considering some of his flaws, this is a severe issue as he doesn't have a strong base which is typical of boom or bust types. Monk could be extremely effective in the ideal situation right now while in a situation that's average to bad, could look worse than Trier to some people.

For me, it's all about three things when it comes to can this player fit anywhere.

1. Base - some guys with weak bases have great situational value like Klay Thompson, D. Mitchell, Bradley Beal, K. Leonard and the other side of it which failed is O.J. Mayo, Elfrid Payton, Lonzo Ball, Nik Stauskas, Darko, etc.

2. Who's around them - The better the personnel who fits the better the prospect.

3. What is it they extremely well and can it translate? If it doesn't, bust kingdom, here they come

how much of this will you be factoring into future draft discussions. I'm starting to see it as a huge thing when we talk about talent compared to fit. So where kid a might be clearly more talented than kid b, if the kid has boom or bust potential dependent on fit and kid b has translatable role player in every way floor being just a solid fit for your system and ceiling being or 2nd or third most important player but never your focal point is it worth it to go with kid b.

I tend to add new items year by year in my reviews. I agree, some people, it's clear what they do. Like if you are drafting Grant Williams, Nassir Little, Cam Johnson or Daniel Gafford, you know exactly what you are getting. There is no real boom or bust risk with those types as they are projectable and play an obvious role that even a dumbass coach can easily figure out.

While others are more difficult. Guys like Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Rui H., Brandon Clarke, Kyle Guy and Sekou D are much more difficult. Say I want to use Rui as a SF who doesn't run any PnR actions as a roller or he has to play in a system, mainly a ball movement one, you might cry and realize real quick he is not that good.

Say you use him as a hybrid forward who runs big man actions and can use his size to get to the paint from the perimeter with iso actions, you might have a steal.

To me, it does matter. That's why it made sense for Washington to go all in on Rui but others had him in the late 1st or 2nd round of their big board. Fit, role, personnel grouping is as critical to player development as your coaches and facilities.

This is the case of another man's trash is another man's treasure.

[Marcus]

There is a massive difference. Trier would be terrible if he had to be accounted for. Right now, he can play his game. Trier for the Knicks is doing what his skill-set offers. That's why he looks like a steal compared to Trier at Arizona who looked like a scrub.

As for Monk, he needs the right system and personnel to play his game. Right now, he can only partially play his game. Considering some of his flaws, this is a severe issue as he doesn't have a strong base which is typical of boom or bust types. Monk could be extremely effective in the ideal situation right now while in a situation that's average to bad, could look worse than Trier to some people.

For me, it's all about three things when it comes to can this player fit anywhere.

1. Base - some guys with weak bases have great situational value like Klay Thompson, D. Mitchell, Bradley Beal, K. Leonard and the other side of it which failed is O.J. Mayo, Elfrid Payton, Lonzo Ball, Nik Stauskas, Darko, etc.

2. Who's around them - The better the personnel who fits the better the prospect.

3. What is it they extremely well and can it translate? If it doesn't, bust kingdom, here they come

how much of this will you be factoring into future draft discussions. I'm starting to see it as a huge thing when we talk about talent compared to fit. So where kid a might be clearly more talented than kid b, if the kid has boom or bust potential dependent on fit and kid b has translatable role player in every way floor being just a solid fit for your system and ceiling being or 2nd or third most important player but never your focal point is it worth it to go with kid b.

I tend to add new items year by year in my reviews. I agree, some people, it's clear what they do. Like if you are drafting Grant Williams, Nassir Little, Cam Johnson or Daniel Gafford, you know exactly what you are getting. There is no real boom or bust risk with those types as they are projectable and play an obvious role that even a dumbass coach can easily figure out.

While others are more difficult. Guys like Cam Reddish, Tyler Herro, Rui H., Brandon Clarke, Kyle Guy and Sekou D are much more difficult. Say I want to use Rui as a SF who doesn't run any PnR actions as a roller or he has to play in a system, mainly a ball movement one, you might cry and realize real quick he is not that good.

Say you use him as a hybrid forward who runs big man actions and can use his size to get to the paint from the perimeter with iso actions, you might have a steal.

To me, it does matter. That's why it made sense for Washington to go all in on Rui but others had him in the late 1st or 2nd round of their big board. Fit, role, personnel grouping is as critical to player development as your coaches and facilities.

This is the case of another man's trash is another man's treasure.

yeah i'm looking to plug this model into the 2021 draft class due to the ridiculous amount of talent there.

[Ballerhogger]

A catch shoot player like mini klay would be useful for a lot teams . Especially if you have pass first PG already

whelp that didnt work out

[doordoor123]

I highlighted what I thought was the two best posts from this thread. I read all of them. A lot of great and solid takes but these two stood out the most.

I broke down Monk's game recently and man he can be a beast. He's smaller, but his quickness and separation are legit. I think he's the second best player in the draft. He thing is he's using advanced moves and moves that will translate to the NBA. When he killed North Carolina he destroyed Justin Jackson, who is 6'8 with a 6'10 wingspan. It's crazy to me that he's doing this stuff at 19. When he figures out his spots and the pace of the NBA he's going to be really **** good. I don't even think it's a question and people are going to ask why he went so low. I also think he's a better passer than he has shown. He has flashes passing, where he makes some really tough ones. His speed is going to help him with his passing in the NBA too.

kid has a lot of work to do. hes a toll booth on defense. extremely inconsistent volume shooter with no left hand to speak of. i know he is one and done but if there was ever a kid who would benefit from three years of college, hes it. his game is 100% dependent on fox right now

Threads like this are always interesting in retrospect. I still like Monk's game but it's clear, situation is king in the NBA. Both of these are true.

His advanced moves does translate as we seen with his scoring outbursts but what Mitchell had that translated was his high end 3pt variance which Monk lacked. Even when he tried the moves, it came out like Steve Francis spinning the wheel and landing on Dr. J dunks. He didn't have the natural footwork even if he has the natural skills. He instantly got off balance after the stepback 3. Something that rarely if ever happens to Mitchell. His pullup 3 was 24% as a rookie and he just finally stopped doing it as a 2nd year player realizing, he's doesn't have the footwork for it.

As a poster mentioned, Monk is a C&S and spot up killer. But you aren't running him off screens, etc.

Watch on YouTube

That said, he has plenty of skill. The biggest thing I saw was what I seen at UK. He can get to any spot on the court but unlike at UK. He didn't have space in the NBA for his franchise. Fox wasn't there with the Hornets. Defense wasn't sucking in and Charlotte lacks floor spacers who can defend as well which they don't like to play with types like Monk. Defenders didn't respect shooters like Tony Parker, MKG, and other players which cut off the lane and spacing for Monk.

https://streamable.com/nbrsf
https://streamable.com/0yjdm

Each time Monk beat his man but didn't have space. Now, players with great strength or body control like Kemba or Lou Will can draw fouls in this case but Monk lacking both just throws up a bad FG attempt.

Situation matters a lot. In the case of Monk, he landed somewhere much worse than he played in college at and struggled severely. The biggest thing I always here is if I was drafted here, man, my career would be different and they are right. It might just be. A Hornet fan said this:

Monk needs to play in a modern offense where the pace is quick and the ball doesn't stop. He needs the floor spaced so he can get either open threes, clear driving lanes, or one dribble into a wide-open mid-range shot, that is his game. I'm firmly convinced that if he played with a garbage squad who at least pushed the pace, like Phoenix, he'd look much better. If he played on a good team, like GS or Houston, who plays a fast style he'd contribute less but still likely look far better.

Much like Braggins mentioned with Frank/Cody/MKG, Monk's development is being wasted. I think the common denominator conservative, and more importantly totally outdated, strategy. What good team in the NBA plays a style even somewhat similar to Cliff-ball (which is just a variation of Van Gundy ball)? No one. There's good reason for that, I think. The game has changed and we're trying to force new-age pegs into old-school holes and failing all sides miserably in the process.

We can talk to our face turns blue. Love this prospect or that prospect but outside of LeBron James, MJ, and guys like that. Most of these guys need the right situation to become the best version of themselves as possible.

Three big issues with with Monk are his mentality for the game, his strength and lack of defense. He can’t be on the floor much because of his lack of defense, he doesn’t have a good body and his body type tends to not translate and he approaches the game like a kid. Obviously he’s still not in his prime and he could get better, but if he doesn’t improve one of those three issues he has he could end up falling out of the league over him. His lack of size and ability to use his athleticism correctly to do his lack of strength can limit him. At best he’s probably a poor man’s Zach LaVine, which doesn’t say much. If you look back at my posts of him, I was constantly up and down on him, but extremes both ways.

[HeadtopChunes]

Honestly I still haven’t given up on Monk, I agree with King Ken. He needs the right system and Charlotte ain’t it.

They are just sticking him in a corner now ...

[Nazrmohamed]

King Ken I usually enjoy your analysis but dont forget one thing. You also gotta factor in where a team is in its rebuild. I gotta assume we're talking about the lottery for the most part because after that you can always find your Littles, Gaffords and basically what you eluded to....your plug and play guys good at one skill. But there is a huge difference between teams picking 1-5 and 5-10 ( and I'm probably gonna have to adjust my thinking with the new lottery rules where we might see more 10worst record teams jump to 4 or 5)

But take your team, the Hawks. They could afford to go after the players they did this year. Guys who you put into a system or fit a scheme. Why because last year you were worse and found your alpha player. Or as you said, your book or bust.

But at some point every team must go after a boom or bust player. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt but you gotta go after it at certain points. Whereby, my team had to go after RJ, risk factors and all cause if we landed the players you did I'd have to wonder....even as they do well and have higher floors.......if theyll ever have RJs 20plus point scoring/playmaking potential. But as I've said before, I like everything the Hawks are doing and think theyll be a contender in 3 yrs in the EC. The only skillset I think would really carry them over the top is a defensive C who is also a great passer but that's rare

[King Ken]

King Ken I usually enjoy your analysis but dont forget one thing. You also gotta factor in where a team is in its rebuild. I gotta assume we're talking about the lottery for the most part because after that you can always find your Littles, Gaffords and basically what you eluded to....your plug and play guys good at one skill. But there is a huge difference between teams picking 1-5 and 5-10 ( and I'm probably gonna have to adjust my thinking with the new lottery rules where we might see more 10worst record teams jump to 4 or 5)

But take your team, the Hawks. They could afford to go after the players they did this year. Guys who you put into a system or fit a scheme. Why because last year you were worse and found your alpha player. Or as you said, your book or bust.

But at some point every team must go after a boom or bust player. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt but you gotta go after it at certain points. Whereby, my team had to go after RJ, risk factors and all cause if we landed the players you did I'd have to wonder....even as they do well and have higher floors.......if theyll ever have RJs 20plus point scoring/playmaking potential. But as I've said before, I like everything the Hawks are doing and think theyll be a contender in 3 yrs in the EC. The only skillset I think would really carry them over the top is a defensive C who is also a great passer but that's rare

The hope is Bruno is eventually that center.

[BostonCouchGM]

I've always viewed Monk as Lou Williams 2.0. Until teams accept what he is, and he does as well, he'll continue to languish with his career in jeopardy. He needs to come off the bench, play major minutes, but be instant offense when he does. Like Williams, you just can't start him, count on him for defense, nor punish him for being a chucker. Let him be who he is. Eventually imo he'll find a team that sees it and his career can flourish. I'm both surprised, and not, that it hasn't clicked for him and CHA because he's perfect for their situation. They don't have bench scoring and they don't have anything to lose. So why not just let him lead the second unit and be the scorer he can be. What do they have to lose? Give him 28 mpg, 15 shots a game and let him be.

[The_Hater]

I've always viewed Monk as Lou Williams 2.0. Until teams accept what he is, and he does as well, he'll continue to languish with his career in jeopardy. He needs to come off the bench, play major minutes, but be instant offense when he does. Like Williams, you just can't start him, count on him for defense, nor punish him for being a chucker. Let him be who he is. Eventually imo he'll find a team that sees it and his career can flourish. I'm both surprised, and not, that it hasn't clicked for him and CHA because he's perfect for their situation. They don't have bench scoring and they don't have anything to lose. So why not just let him lead the second unit and be the scorer he can be. What do they have to lose? Give him 28 mpg, 15 shots a game and let him be.

You still have to make shots to be the next Lou Williams, and Monk hasn’t done that coming off the bench for 2 seasons now. They weren’t trying to make him a starter or something he wasn’t.

At least now he seems to be taking his career a bit more seriously, he strikes me as a guy who had so much success in HS and then instantly in college that he thought things were going to continue to come easy for him.

[clyde21]

I've always viewed Monk as Lou Williams 2.0. Until teams accept what he is, and he does as well, he'll continue to languish with his career in jeopardy. He needs to come off the bench, play major minutes, but be instant offense when he does. Like Williams, you just can't start him, count on him for defense, nor punish him for being a chucker. Let him be who he is. Eventually imo he'll find a team that sees it and his career can flourish. I'm both surprised, and not, that it hasn't clicked for him and CHA because he's perfect for their situation. They don't have bench scoring and they don't have anything to lose. So why not just let him lead the second unit and be the scorer he can be. What do they have to lose? Give him 28 mpg, 15 shots a game and let him be.

he also needs to accept that...not everyone can play that role, especially if they don't buy into it mentally

truth is, this guy just wasn't that good of a prospect, on the weaker side, scoring is way too hot/cold, isn't really a good enough handler or playmaker to be considered a combo guard so he's more of an undersized 2, defense leaves a lot to be desire and the efficiency on offense doesn't make up for it...

[LofJ]

Monk looked fantastic last night. Instead of running off screens and settling for jumpers he attacked the rim off the dribble and made plays for his teammates. He is pretty good at making P&R reads and finding the big man for the finish - he made Willy Hernangomez look better than he is.

Watch on YouTube

[HotelVitale]

I've always viewed Monk as Lou Williams 2.0. Until teams accept what he is, and he does as well, he'll continue to languish with his career in jeopardy. He needs to come off the bench, play major minutes, but be instant offense when he does. Like Williams, you just can't start him, count on him for defense, nor punish him for being a chucker. Let him be who he is. Eventually imo he'll find a team that sees it and his career can flourish. I'm both surprised, and not, that it hasn't clicked for him and CHA because he's perfect for their situation. They don't have bench scoring and they don't have anything to lose. So why not just let him lead the second unit and be the scorer he can be. What do they have to lose? Give him 28 mpg, 15 shots a game and let him be.

he also needs to accept that...not everyone can play that role, especially if they don't buy into it mentally truth is, this guy just wasn't that good of a prospect, on the weaker side, scoring is way too hot/cold, isn't really a good enough handler or playmaker to be considered a combo guard so he's more of an undersized 2, defense leaves a lot to be desire and the efficiency on offense doesn't make up for it...

Don't see the point of this--you obviously can't just say 'you know what, I'm actually going to be Lou Williams!' His role came about as a result of his game/abilities, not vice versa. Monk has to worry about being good enough to play ANY role in the league and then go from there, right now he's just getting developmental/prospect minutes, not ones he's deserved on a good team.

[clyde21]

I've always viewed Monk as Lou Williams 2.0. Until teams accept what he is, and he does as well, he'll continue to languish with his career in jeopardy. He needs to come off the bench, play major minutes, but be instant offense when he does. Like Williams, you just can't start him, count on him for defense, nor punish him for being a chucker. Let him be who he is. Eventually imo he'll find a team that sees it and his career can flourish. I'm both surprised, and not, that it hasn't clicked for him and CHA because he's perfect for their situation. They don't have bench scoring and they don't have anything to lose. So why not just let him lead the second unit and be the scorer he can be. What do they have to lose? Give him 28 mpg, 15 shots a game and let him be.

he also needs to accept that...not everyone can play that role, especially if they don't buy into it mentally truth is, this guy just wasn't that good of a prospect, on the weaker side, scoring is way too hot/cold, isn't really a good enough handler or playmaker to be considered a combo guard so he's more of an undersized 2, defense leaves a lot to be desire and the efficiency on offense doesn't make up for it...

Don't see the point of this--you obviously can't just say 'you know what, I'm actually going to be Lou Williams!' His role came about as a result of his game/abilities, not vice versa. Monk has to worry about being good enough to play ANY role in the league and then go from there, right now he's just getting developmental/prospect minutes, not ones he's deserved on a good team.

because coming off the bench comes with a completely different mindset than being a starter...if he still sees himself as a starter coming off the bench will not work...a la a guy like Rozier and Melo the last few years of his career.

[Marcus]

he also needs to accept that...not everyone can play that role, especially if they don't buy into it mentally truth is, this guy just wasn't that good of a prospect, on the weaker side, scoring is way too hot/cold, isn't really a good enough handler or playmaker to be considered a combo guard so he's more of an undersized 2, defense leaves a lot to be desire and the efficiency on offense doesn't make up for it...

Don't see the point of this--you obviously can't just say 'you know what, I'm actually going to be Lou Williams!' His role came about as a result of his game/abilities, not vice versa. Monk has to worry about being good enough to play ANY role in the league and then go from there, right now he's just getting developmental/prospect minutes, not ones he's deserved on a good team.

because coming off the bench comes with a completely different mindset than being a starter...if he still sees himself as a starter coming off the bench will not work...a la a guy like Rozier and Melo the last few years of his career.

My favorite when it comes to that is still A.I.

Watch on YouTube

[HotelVitale]

because coming off the bench comes with a completely different mindset than being a starter...if he still sees himself as a starter coming off the bench will not work...a la a guy like Rozier and Melo the last few years of his career.

Not trying to be difficult but I honestly don't get what you're after. His eventual role is totally up in the air and his current role isn't up to him--if the coach wants to start him and have him chuck up dozens of shots that's what he'll do, if the coach wants to play him 20 minutes per game against second units then he'll do that. Long term we have no idea if he's any good as a NBA player now, so it seems premature to talk about him not accepting a lesser role when he's not even good enough for that at the moment.

[clyde21]

because coming off the bench comes with a completely different mindset than being a starter...if he still sees himself as a starter coming off the bench will not work...a la a guy like Rozier and Melo the last few years of his career.

Not trying to be difficult but I honestly don't get what you're after. His eventual role is totally up in the air and his current role isn't up to him--if the coach wants to start him and have him chuck up dozens of shots that's what he'll do, if the coach wants to play him 20 minutes per game against second units then he'll do that. Long term we have no idea if he's any good as a NBA player now, so it seems premature to talk about him not accepting a lesser role when he's not good enough for that at the moment.

i don't understand what you're not understanding.

-> from a talent standpoint he's a better fit on the bench as a 6th man

-> it won't work if his mindset still thinks he's a starter and not a role player off the bench

-> until that mindset changes he's not gonna have an impact in any role or position

what's the issue here? if you disagree he's a 6th man talent that's a different discussion.

[HotelVitale]

i don't understand what you're not understanding.
A)-> from a talent standpoint he's a better fit on the bench as a 6th man
B)-> it won't work if his mindset still thinks he's a starter and not a role player off the bench
C)-> until that mindset changes he's not gonna have an impact in any role or position
what's the issue here? if you disagree he's a 6th man talent that's a different discussion.

Okay, I get where you're coming from but here's why it doesn't add up for me:
A) His game/talent is as an undersized athletic shooter/scorer, which one can do as a star, a meh starter, a 6th man, an 11th man, playing somewhere in China, or playing somewhere in the Philipines. I'm not disputing that it looks like his best case scenario is a Lou Williams type, but I don't think he actually has to change his game (or his in-game approach, practice drills, etc) to be that as opposed to someone who does the same things but happens to start (or who plays a smaller role than Lou Will does on his teams). Do you think there are some concrete different things beyond a 'mindset'?
B) We don't know what his mindset is at all, seems likely he has no idea himself and hasn't shaped a longterm 'mindset' about his final role yet; he's probably just trying to grind now and make his name
C) Just think this is a wrong way of presenting/thinking about a youngish 3rd year player without any settled role--he's going to go out and play hard and try to do his thing as well as he can, and I don't think that him thinking 'I really want to be a starter!' holds him back at all. If in a year or two he's clearly good enough to be a bench scorer but not good enough to start on a decent team--and he's refusing to accept that--then sure it makes sense to frame his situation this way.

[clyde21]

i don't understand what you're not understanding.
A)-> from a talent standpoint he's a better fit on the bench as a 6th man
B)-> it won't work if his mindset still thinks he's a starter and not a role player off the bench
C)-> until that mindset changes he's not gonna have an impact in any role or position
what's the issue here? if you disagree he's a 6th man talent that's a different discussion.

Okay, I get where you're coming from but here's why it doesn't add up for me:
A) His game/talent is as an undersized athletic shooter/scorer, which one can do as a star, a meh starter, a 6th man, an 11th man, playing somewhere in China, or playing somewhere in the Philipines. I'm not disputing that it looks like his best case scenario is a Lou Williams type, but I don't think he actually has to change his game (or his in-game approach, practice drills, etc) to be that as opposed to someone who does the same things but happens to start (or who plays a smaller role than Lou Will does on his teams). Do you think there are some concrete different things beyond a 'mindset'?
B) We don't know what his mindset is at all, seems likely he has no idea himself and hasn't shaped a longterm 'mindset' about his final role yet; he's probably just trying to grind now and make his name
C) Just think this is a wrong way of presenting/thinking about a youngish 3rd year player without any settled role--he's going to go out and play hard and try to do his thing as well as he can, and I don't think that him thinking 'I really want to be a starter!' holds him back at all. If in a year or two he's clearly good enough to be a bench scorer but not good enough to start on a decent team--and he's refusing to accept that--then sure it makes sense to frame his situation this way.

he's an undersized 2 with not enough handling/playmaking to be a combo or lead guard, with some serious issues defensively on top of it, that's why a scoring guard off the bench is his best bet to be a long term contributer.

however, IF his mindset is that he's a starter...then i think there's a disconnect between his mindset and his talent...the only way I can see him being a contributer is as a 6th man type, but he needs to be open to that type of role...that is what I am saying

sounds like you just disagree with my eval of him, which again is a different discussion

[HeadtopChunes]

i don't understand what you're not understanding.
A)-> from a talent standpoint he's a better fit on the bench as a 6th man
B)-> it won't work if his mindset still thinks he's a starter and not a role player off the bench
C)-> until that mindset changes he's not gonna have an impact in any role or position
what's the issue here? if you disagree he's a 6th man talent that's a different discussion.

Okay, I get where you're coming from but here's why it doesn't add up for me:
A) His game/talent is as an undersized athletic shooter/scorer, which one can do as a star, a meh starter, a 6th man, an 11th man, playing somewhere in China, or playing somewhere in the Philipines. I'm not disputing that it looks like his best case scenario is a Lou Williams type, but I don't think he actually has to change his game (or his in-game approach, practice drills, etc) to be that as opposed to someone who does the same things but happens to start (or who plays a smaller role than Lou Will does on his teams). Do you think there are some concrete different things beyond a 'mindset'?
B) We don't know what his mindset is at all, seems likely he has no idea himself and hasn't shaped a longterm 'mindset' about his final role yet; he's probably just trying to grind now and make his name
C) Just think this is a wrong way of presenting/thinking about a youngish 3rd year player without any settled role--he's going to go out and play hard and try to do his thing as well as he can, and I don't think that him thinking 'I really want to be a starter!' holds him back at all. If in a year or two he's clearly good enough to be a bench scorer but not good enough to start on a decent team--and he's refusing to accept that--then sure it makes sense to frame his situation this way.

he's an undersized 2 with not enough handling/playmaking to be a combo or lead guard, with some serious issues defensively on top of it, that's why a scoring guard off the bench is his best bet to be a long term contributer.

however, IF his mindset is that he's a starter...then i think there's a disconnect between his mindset and his talent...the only way I can see him being a contributer is as a 6th man type, but he needs to be open to that type of role...that is what I am saying

sounds like you just disagree with my eval of him, which again is a different discussion

I think you’re a little pessimistic about his potential on defense and a PnR playmaker.

He’s shown significant growth in both areas in the preseason IMO