RealGM

I just got home from work, so I'll write my thoughts about him later. In the meantime, hopefully you enjoy the video, since these highlights are the only thing that allows me to contribute to this board in any meaningful way.

You're flat out killing it with these highlight videos. Keep it up, and your last sentence clearly isn't true!

Monroe had one of the softest touches for a guard in league history. And while I wouldn't quite call them floaters, he was the king of those off balance shots in the lane. Great use of hesitation for an undersized SG to create space.

Clyde Frazier wrote:You're flat out killing it with these highlight videos. Keep it up, and your last sentence clearly isn't true!

Monroe had one of the softest touches for a guard in league history. And while I wouldn't quite call them floaters, he was the king of those off balance shots in the lane. Great use of hesitation for an undersized SG to create space.

I'll go into greater detail later, but is it insane for me to think that the 1973 Knicks didn't have a true PG? From what I saw, Frazier and Monroe handled the ball somewhat equally, and both looked to score as much as they passed. In a way, the Knicks of that time played an early version of modern NBA basketball. They took more jumpers than any team I've ever seen, and ran an endless number of pick and rolls/pops and dribble handoff for their guards, with Willis Reed always ready to shoot a jumper from the perimieter. Jerry Lucas and Dave Debusschere also took a crazy amount of long shots, and never posted up despite being big men. Their role in the offense was the screen and shoot from the perimeter. It was really interesting to watch.

PockyCandy wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:is it insane for me to think that the 1973 Knicks didn't have a true PG? From what I saw, Frazier and Monroe handled the ball somewhat equally, and both looked to score as much as they passed.

That was the way most teams' guards played. It wasn't 'til around the 80s when the divide between 1s and 2s really became pronounced and by the time the 90s came you had a whole lot of SGs who couldn't break pressure. Up through the 70s though the vast majority of "guards" were expected to be able to bring the all upcourt and initiate the offense.

PockyCandy wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:You're flat out killing it with these highlight videos. Keep it up, and your last sentence clearly isn't true!

Monroe had one of the softest touches for a guard in league history. And while I wouldn't quite call them floaters, he was the king of those off balance shots in the lane. Great use of hesitation for an undersized SG to create space.

I'll go into greater detail later, but is it insane for me to think that the 1973 Knicks didn't have a true PG? From what I saw, Frazier and Monroe handled the ball somewhat equally, and both looked to score as much as they passed. In a way, the Knicks of that time played an early version of modern NBA basketball. They took more jumpers than any team I've ever seen, and ran an endless number of pick and rolls/pops and dribble handoff for their guards, with Willis Reed always ready to shoot a jumper from the perimieter. Jerry Lucas and Dave Debusschere also took a crazy amount of long shots, and never posted up despite being big men. Their role in the offense was the screen and shoot from the perimeter. It was really interesting to watch.

There was a lot of speculation by the media when the Knicks traded for Monroe if he and Clyde could share the ball. Monroe took a backseat as a scorer and they ultimately proved the doubters wrong. "Hit the open man" was red holzman's mantra, and the entire starting 5 could shoot. Lucas specifically definitely had 3PT range.

Love these vids. Keep it up please. I also think it's cool that someone as young as you has such an intellectual curiosity about players before your time. When I was your age I absolutely did not. And even now in my mid 30s I barely do

JulesWinnfield wrote:Love these vids. Keep it up please. I also think it's cool that someone as young as you has such an intellectual curiosity about players before your time. When I was your age I absolutely did not. And even now in my mid 30s I barely do

I'll probably make a longer topic-post about it later, but older players fascinate me. They're like mysteries to me, waiting to be explored. I hear stories about them from their peers, and those guys often sound larger than life (rose-tinted nostalgia effect). So I'm like "Well then, let's see if _____ lives up to the hype!" Or sometimes, you see their name next to some record, and that piques my interest as well.

And this has no basis for being true, and is just an opinion, but I think that I'm a lot more objective about assessing players from previous eras than quite a few older fans. Since I have no emotional attachment to them, I just see them as basketball players rather than heroes or such. For instance, I'd probably have a higher opinion of Carmelo Anthony if he played in Dominique Wilkins' era, and vice versa, even though they're very similar players. This is because I've been affected by the narratives that surround Melo, while this isn't the case with Nique. Granted, I was pretty critical of Dominique anyways, so who knows?

My thoughts:

Like Clyde said on earlier, the Pearl had amazing touch around the rim. He didn't play above the rim, but it didn't even matter when it came to finishing around the hoop. Defenders could be draped all over him, and if he'd still find a way to get the ball up on the rim and into the basket.

His spin move was extremely effective, but in a different way than Nique's or Wiggin's. While he did often do it facing the rim, Monroe often did it from a post-position. Rather than use it to blow past his man like those two did, Earl the Pearl used it to get closer and closer to the basket, in a more methodical way. And yes, I wondered if his spin move was traveling, and while it didn't look like it to me, but I could see the argument for it.

For such a ball-dominant player, Monroe seemed to be a really good off-ball player. He was every effective off the catch and shoot. Running off screens a la Ray Allen was often an effective way to Monroe free for a look at the basket. Of course, he was also really good at cutting to the basket as well for open layups.

Monroe was also a phenomenal passer, although he was prone to some boneheaded turnovers, much like Ginobili. Actually, when I was watching Monroe, I kept wondering if I was watching a proto-Manu when I was studying the Pearl. Think about it: Both were diverse scorers, could get to the basket, were creative finishers, advanced passers, clutch, and would occasionally commit some mind-numbingly bad turnovers.

As for Monroe's defense, he certainly didn't seem all that bad. Seemed to stay in front of his man well, and didn't' lose his guy off-ball either. If anyone thinks differently, then feel free to tell me that I'm wrong.

It's still early in the morning, so i probably didn't say everything I wanted to, but I neeeded to get this done before school starts.

PockyCandy wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:You're flat out killing it with these highlight videos. Keep it up, and your last sentence clearly isn't true!

Monroe had one of the softest touches for a guard in league history. And while I wouldn't quite call them floaters, he was the king of those off balance shots in the lane. Great use of hesitation for an undersized SG to create space.

I'll go into greater detail later, but is it insane for me to think that the 1973 Knicks didn't have a true PG? From what I saw, Frazier and Monroe handled the ball somewhat equally, and both looked to score as much as they passed. In a way, the Knicks of that time played an early version of modern NBA basketball. They took more jumpers than any team I've ever seen, and ran an endless number of pick and rolls/pops and dribble handoff for their guards, with Willis Reed always ready to shoot a jumper from the perimieter. Jerry Lucas and Dave Debusschere also took a crazy amount of long shots, and never posted up despite being big men. Their role in the offense was the screen and shoot from the perimeter. It was really interesting to watch.

If they would have had the three ball in the Knicks glory days, the Knicks might have been the best team to take advantage of the shot.
They had three long ball shooters in DeBusschere, Lucas, and Bradley, and I think Monroe and Frazier had the form to shoot it as well, especially Monroe.
While watching one Knicks-Bucks game from 1970 on YT I saw DeBusschere take several shots off curls around the three point line and make them.
Lucas took a lot of long outside shots as well, and of course Bradley, like many of the league's sfs, took a lot of corner shots.

Monroe is really good player. He also proved that he was very portable after the Knicks trade - he was supposed to fail because he had been quite ball-dominant in Bullets. He proved that it was bull and he adjusted his game to play more off the ball as you said.

He was never superstar-level player but I see him more valuable than his stats suggest.

I also really like his style - he dribbled the ball with such a rythm, I've never seen something like that. I don't think he was the best ballhandler among all-timers but he was smooth with his handles. He also knew how to use his body to draw and absorb contact. One of the masters of pump-fake along with Chet Walker during that time.

Do you think about the next basketball project, or you want to rest from BBall mixes now? Who are you going to make next?

PockyCandy wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:You're flat out killing it with these highlight videos. Keep it up, and your last sentence clearly isn't true!

Monroe had one of the softest touches for a guard in league history. And while I wouldn't quite call them floaters, he was the king of those off balance shots in the lane. Great use of hesitation for an undersized SG to create space.

I'll go into greater detail later, but is it insane for me to think that the 1973 Knicks didn't have a true PG? From what I saw, Frazier and Monroe handled the ball somewhat equally, and both looked to score as much as they passed. In a way, the Knicks of that time played an early version of modern NBA basketball. They took more jumpers than any team I've ever seen, and ran an endless number of pick and rolls/pops and dribble handoff for their guards, with Willis Reed always ready to shoot a jumper from the perimieter. Jerry Lucas and Dave Debusschere also took a crazy amount of long shots, and never posted up despite being big men. Their role in the offense was the screen and shoot from the perimeter. It was really interesting to watch.

You make some good points about the Knicks pgs. While Frazier has always been considered the Knicks prime pg, Monroe did a lot of it as well. Monroe was always considered more of a sg than a true pg, but with him and Frazier playing at the same time they had to give Monroe his share of the ball.
Before Monroe Dick Barnett was the other guard and didn't handle the ball as much as Monroe. But with Monroe's ability to score and handle the ball, they changed tactics a bit.
Even though he was an excellent distributor Frazier never piled up the assists like some pgs of recent years because the Knicks ran a passing offense, and one player didn't dominate the ball.
All the Knicks players could pass and shoot, and that made them very tough to guard.

70sFan wrote:Monroe is really good player. He also proved that he was very portable after the Knicks trade - he was supposed to fail because he had been quite ball-dominant in Bullets. He proved that it was bull and he adjusted his game to play more off the ball as you said.

He was never superstar-level player but I see him more valuable than his stats suggest.

I also really like his style - he dribbled the ball with such a rythm, I've never seen something like that. I don't think he was the best ballhandler among all-timers but he was smooth with his handles. He also knew how to use his body to draw and absorb contact. One of the masters of pump-fake along with Chet Walker during that time.

Do you think about the next basketball project, or you want to rest from BBall mixes now? Who are you going to make next?

As a Spurs fan, what do you think of my comparison between Ginobili and Monroe?

Also, I want to either make a World B Free, a George McGinnis, or a Paul Westphal video. Or a Len Bias or MJ in college video. All of those sound fun. But after that, I need to stop for a month. Schoolwork is really ramping up now....

PockyCandy wrote:

70sFan wrote:Monroe is really good player. He also proved that he was very portable after the Knicks trade - he was supposed to fail because he had been quite ball-dominant in Bullets. He proved that it was bull and he adjusted his game to play more off the ball as you said.

He was never superstar-level player but I see him more valuable than his stats suggest.

I also really like his style - he dribbled the ball with such a rythm, I've never seen something like that. I don't think he was the best ballhandler among all-timers but he was smooth with his handles. He also knew how to use his body to draw and absorb contact. One of the masters of pump-fake along with Chet Walker during that time.

Do you think about the next basketball project, or you want to rest from BBall mixes now? Who are you going to make next?

As a Spurs fan, what do you think of my comparison between Ginobili and Monroe?

Also, I want to either make a World B Free, a George McGinnis, or a Paul Westphal video. Or a Len Bias or MJ in college video. All of those sound fun. But after that, I need to stop for a month. Schoolwork is really ramping up now....

It's not bad at all - Gino is better playmaker and Monroe is more willing to play one on one. Both are above average defenders (I'd say Manu is better though). Monroe is more capable of carrying the big load offensively because of better durability. Their styles aren't exacly the same, but they are similar in terms of impact.

All of your ideas are very interesting. Especially Westphal who is very underrated nowadays. McGinnis is always interesting to see because there haven't been anyone like him before or since. World B Free is scoring machine and one of the better shooters I've seen.

I'm not expert about college basketball so it can be interesting to see some footage highlights.

70sFan wrote:All of your ideas are very interesting. Especially Westphal who is very underrated nowadays. McGinnis is always interesting to see because there haven't been anyone like him before or since. World B Free is scoring machine and one of the better shooters I've seen.

I'm not expert about college basketball so it can be interesting to see some footage highlights.

Westphal looks like such an interesting player. McGinnis actually looks kinda boring aside from his one handed catapult jumper, but he looked up some bomb numbers. World B Free took a ton of really high arcing shots that would look nice in a compilation.

MJ would get me more viewers, and Len Bias would sate my curiosity as for why Len Bias was so highly touted before biting the dust.

I'm kind of disapointed that I'll have to take a brief hiatus, cause I freaking love making these videos, but schoolwork > work < Girls > NBA videos

Quotatious wrote:.............

I've been waiting for you to drop some knowledge in this thread

Great work ! Is that Barry video still coming ?

PockyCandy wrote: McGinnis actually looks kinda boring aside from his one handed catapult jumper

Forest for the trees

PockyCandy wrote:I've been waiting for you to drop some knowledge in this thread

I love your work, especially the fact that you're making those videos for players that are getting a little bit forgotten in the league's history books, as time continues to pass.

Monroe was a very unique player, I don't think there's anybody who would be very close to him stylistically, in the more recent decades. Rod Strickland, Tony Parker, Andre Miller, those guys come to mind as somewhat similar, with some CP3 and Manu mixed in. If I had to pick one guy who had the most similar game and mentality, it would be Tony Parker (at first I wanted to say Strickland, but he was more of a playmaker than a scorer, while Earl was primarily a scorer, and I would say Parker is also more of a scorer than a pure facilitator, by nature, although obviously TP never scored on the kind of volume that Earl did - Monroe had more in common with Gilbert Arenas or Damian Lillard in terms of mentality and "player profile" so to speak, but he didn't take shots from a distance as long as Arenas or Lillard). Well, maybe Kyrie Irving without the 3-point shot would be a decent comparison, too (just the trickery as far as ball-handling, and scorer's mentality at similar size).

Monroe exemplifies natural talent for the game, IMO. What I mean by that - he was a good athlete (even very good in his Bullet years), but not close to the most athletic point guards ever, like Westbrook, MVP Rose, Kevin Johnson, Steve Francis, even Baron Davis, in terms of power and explosiveness, and he was a pretty good, but not elite, shooter. He was, however, an incredibly skilled ball-handler, and knew how to keep his defenders off-balance, keep them guessing, beat them off the dribble and he knew how to get to the spots where he wanted to go, regardless of how good defensively his opponents were. To me that's a sign of a guy with a boatload of natural natural for the game. He had a nice jump-shot/floater from 13-16 feet, like Vinnie Johnson (and sort of like Tony Parker), he had a very soft touch on that in-between shot, that he used to shoot over bigmen and didn't get blocked a lot. Athletically, his side-to-side quickness and agility was definitely his best trait.

Great thing about Monroe is that unlike Pete Maravich, he proved he could be a showman but at the same time be a part of contending teams, in different roles - he was the go-to-guy of 57-win Bullets in 1969, then the first option on the Bullets team that made the finals in 1971, but at age 27 (so pretty much in the prime of his career) he accepted a more limited role and was a significant part of a championship team in 1973 with the Knicks (shot over 52% FG in the 1973 playoffs, his career-high). After the Knicks lost some key players (Reed, Lucas, DeBusschere) in the mid 70s, Monroe started taking more shots again, and was a 20-point scorer again from 1975 to 1977.

Monroe was an excellent combination of style and substance, and more of a team player than many people think. He was very flashy but not really a selfish, me-first player.

Man, the list of his nicknames on basketball-reference is really cool - "The Pearl, Black Jesus, Black Magic, Einstein, The Lord’s Prayer, Thomas Edison" - damn, wow.

Oh, and the title of this thread is really nice, that sounds like Walt Frazier introducing his teammate, with all those rhymes.

Nice video man. Very interesting to see players before my time that Ive only read about. Monroe seems like my kind of player I love seeing those little I between shots in the midrange and that touch on those double pumps ooo wee

Quotatious wrote:Monroe was an excellent combination of style and substance, and more of a team player than many people think. He was very flashy but not really a selfish, me-first player.

This is the best way anyone can describe Earl Monroe. He was exciting as hell, but the guy had some substance in his game too.

Also, would you say that Earl Monroe had really good form on his jumper? I thought that it looked "modern", for a lack of a better term.

Bullets coach Gene Shue said that Monroe had the greatest combination of basketball ability and showmanship. His teammate, Ray Scott, had one of the all-time great quotes: "God couldn't go one-on-one with Earl". Walt Frazier compared guarding Monroe to watching a horror movie. And Monroe himself once said "I don't know what I'm going to do with the ball. And if I don't know, I'm pretty sure the guy guarding me doesn't know either".

You have to think back to what basketball looked like when Monroe came to the league - it was a lot more "white" than it is today and play was also a lot more conservative than it is today. When the Pearl joined the league, no one had seen his spin move or the herky-jerky dipsey-doodle shots he came up with; he was a complete one-of-a-kind then. Man, I LOVED to watch him play because it was just a completely different style of basketball than what everyone else was doing. Others weren't as enthralled - some strongly disliked his playground style and felt that he was showboating. He was "ruining" the way traditional basketball should be played. As a kid, I never paid attention to the racial overtones of the criticism (but thinking back on it today, it was an odd coincidence that I only remember older white guys that were condemning the 'Black Jesus'). I never paid attention to that stuff; I just knew that I loved watching the Pearl play. I tried to copy him - since just dribbling in a straight line was a challenge for me, I never came close to being able to mimic his ball handling. So I settled for trying to copy the way he shot free throws (gotta start somewhere!). In my opinion, you just can't capture the same magic of watching Monroe play by watching video clips today and compare it to the scores of great players that have come since his day. Instead, you have to watch it in the context of what watching basketball was like at that time. When you do that, then you get a much better sense of the wonderment, that excitement, of watching Monroe weave his magic.