Monta Ellis Comparisons

by Mdawg851 on Jun 1, 2007 2:54 PM PDT Comment 61 comments

My friends all think Monta is the next Allen Iverson, but I think he's more like a Tony Parker with hops. Either way, I don't think we should trade this kid no matter what, and make sure that we do not sign MP3 or Barnes, because we will need a lot more cap space for next year when he becomes a FA. He's only 21, and the sky is the limit for this guy. I can see him eventually developing into a PG within the next 2 years, and we need to extend his contract, or else he's gone like Arenas.

How much would it cost to buyout Foyle's contract?

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 61 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree to a certain degree

I agree with the possible comparison with Parker or AI, maybe not the AI fire power or relentlessness that AI has but he will be a good scorer. I would actually say he is more of a Rip Hamilton with a sprinkle of Tony Parker, able to shoot the mid-range jumper with the ability to take it to the rack and finish. I would keep him at the shooting guard position but develop his handles. He can bring to the table more then JRich with his potential slashing to the basket and creating space with his jump shots. I would explore getting a back up Point Guard in the draft, maybe in the later rounds. What do you all think?

by KillaCrossOver on Jun 1, 2007 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

more AI

then Tony Parker because he has the ability to finish/score. Parker is more of a PG and Monta is a small SG.

gdubb

by gogomaplata on Jun 1, 2007 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Got Lyrics?

Off the subject lol... I think Monta can kick flows a tad tighter than Parker... I mean yeah its a totally different rhyme style- I'd always read articles about Monta's love for Dirty South Hip-Hop. I think he can kick it and come up soundin' a lil' like T.I. (lol).These days every1 wants 2 be a rapper, I think Monta can pull that off lol!

by Tony.psd on Jun 1, 2007 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

rough

He still has a long way to go mentally. I think his game is strong, and in the regular season we saw that, but in the playoffs he just lost himself, got off his game, and was essentially a non-factor (with the exception of his contributions in game 6 of the first round when he spelled an injured Baron for some quality minutes). I like him, I want to keep him, we should trade away players to keep him, but unless he has a mega-year next year...I'd rather we not hand him a mega-deal.

Still need a backup PG, because he is not a 1.

jusgo

by tobin on Jun 1, 2007 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Anyone see

similarities to Steve Francis when he played for the Rockets? Slightly less athletic, slightly better shot.

by FoyledAgain on Jun 1, 2007 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There are some similarities in their games

but there are some big differences too. Both Monta and Francis are supremely athletic and quick, but Francis has a stronger frame.

Defensively, Monta is much more effective than Francis unless he is being posted up where his lack of strength can be exploited.

Francis was once a huge prospect, but he really hasn't improved THAT much since he's been in the league. He reminds me of Vince Carter, in that he's tremendously gifted, but doesn't have the drive to be truly great.

Overall, Francis has been a disappointment in the league, and I think Monta has a higher ceiling mainly because he seems focused on improving his game.

Skill-wise they are somewhat similar, but I think Monta right now is more like Barbosa, Parker and even a rich man's Bobby Jackson than he is like Steve Francis.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 1, 2007 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

francis

also had a better crossover and overall handles

by travisl212 on Jun 3, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Logic?

Dude, in one diary, you're going on about how we have to pick a big man at #18 rather than the Best Player Available.

In this one, you sing the praises of Monta, who you may recall was the ultimate "BPA" pick, since at the time we drafted him we were totally set at PG and SG.

Meanwhile, you wonder how we can dump Foyle, who we picked ahead of some dude named Tracy McGrady because we "needed" a big man.

As to your Monta question: I think it's still wait and see. If he can learn to run an offense like Tony P, he can be a legit NBA all-star. But hey, when you're torn between comparisons to AI and TP, you know you've done pretty well for yourself. Not bad for a second-rounder, huh? Just goes to show the kind of gems you can turn up when you don't worry about drafting for "need."

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 1, 2007 4:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My logic

I don't know why we should take the BPA if he is a 1,2,tweener because he won't get any time. If we pick the BPA 3,4, tweener, then it makes sense. I just don't see how a guy like Nick Young is going to help us with our rebounding issue.

Monta was a gamble when we drafted him, as all HS players are (minus KG and Lebron). Plus Ellis was thought of more as a 1 than a 2, so they knew that he wouldn't contribute immediately since we had Fisher and Davis. He really didn't even flourish till Nellie came and gave him the playing time.

As for Foyle, that was before Mullin, and if you haven't realized, but we picked the worst players ever back in the day. Most likely due to the coaches and GMs. Now we are selecting fairly better, but if you're going to pull the Foyle card, then why not mention Todd Fuller, Joe Smith, trading Vince Carter for Jamison too.

The Warriors suck at drafting in the lottery. Only J-Rich and Biedrins have been decent selections in the past, and to be honest, we really should just keep drafting tweener guards in the 2nd round, and keep wasting our first round picks on power forwards, hoping for a hit.

by Mdawg851 on Jun 1, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Woot someone agrees with me

I think drafting BPA in the second round is a great idea, that's how we came up on Monta Ellis and maybe we can get lucky again this draft.

But I just want to see the Dubs draft a 1st round pick that they can actually use next season. If we believe Baron, Jrich, and Monta are our future (which I do) then there's no room for a 1/2.

by jlagace on Jun 1, 2007 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

always BPA

if we have quality depth, we can trade for need, but if we draft big stiffs (again) no one will want them and we haven't met our need either

as far as recent drafts going better, that 2006 group isn't exactly setting the league on fire, unless it's the euroleague or developmental league ...

the only thing that saved Mullin was the 8player trade and the desperate late run making the playoffs - his track record aint all that great

by hardcore on Jun 1, 2007 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

drafting

I don't think anybody has said we want to draft any big stiffs that will ride the bench, that's not a team need; in fact we have alot of depth at That position.

When I say draft for need I mean draft a 3, 4, or 5 that's athletic, multi-dimensional and hopefully can board and defend.

Having quality depth is good and trading for needs is smart, but it's just very difficult in the NBA to trade for size.

by jlagace on Jun 1, 2007 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No such animal exists at #18.

As you say, if all we care about is a big body, we have at least four of those in Powell, Foyle, POB, and Perovic.

There's no guarantee any big man we pick at #18 will be any better than them.

Again, unless you talk specifics, the argument is pointless.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 1, 2007 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Specifically

For example, I would rather the Warriors draft Sean Williams over Acie Law or Rudy Fernandez.

You're right though, we don't know if a player like Sean Williams will be better than our big men scrubs. But I'd rather get a player that could potentially be an impact on this team than a player that won't even really get much of a chance.

How useful can an Acie Law or Rudy Fernandez be to our team when we want to give Monta 30+ minutes off the bench? Giving more minutes to our new rookie would just keep Monta from getting PT.

I think there is some non-guard talent that can be had at #18, and I hope the Warriors find it. Millsap went 47th, Hakim Warrick went 19th, David Lee went 30th, Varejao went 31st, Diaw went 21st, Josh Howard went 29th, etc.

This is a deep draft and I think it's possible that history repeats itself.

by jlagace on Jun 1, 2007 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

Thanks for specifying.

I've never seen Williams or Fernandez play, so it's tough for me to judge. FWIW, DraftExpress has Fernandez going at #19 (to LA) and Williams at #40 (also to LA), while DraftNet has Fernandez at #18 (to us) and Williams at #35 (to Seattle). Given how highly prized players with Williams physical attributes generally are, you have to figure there's a pretty good reason he's so far down. You never know, though ... we'll see how much his stock rises or falls under all the pre-draft scrutiny (workouts, interviews, etc.) If he doesn't rise, we might as well just grab him with one of our 2nd rounders, no?

Bottom line for me is that "usefulness" is totally overrated. One of the great things about Nellie is he won't find any "use" for you unless you can ball. We had eight real ballers on last year's team, nine if you count Buki, and six of them were basically swingmen. Since two of them (Pietrus and Barnes) may be leaving this offseason, I don't really see the big problem with grabbing a guy like Nick Young or Rudy F at #18, assuming we really like either of them. It's probably safe to assume we won't be drafting anyone Nellie doesn't think can play and flourish in our system. If that happens to be a "true" 4 or 5, so much the better, but in this year's draft, I just don't see who that could be.

Now, if you're willing to step down to a 3 or a "Nellieball 4," I suppose we could compromise on Thaddeus Young. He's not as polished as Rudy Fernandez, but his upside at least seems to make him a legit #18 pick.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 1, 2007 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thad Young wouldn't be a compromise at all

I have no problem at all with Thad Young and if he slips I hope to god the Dubs don't pass on him.

by jlagace on Jun 1, 2007 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

reason for Williams

being so low on mocks is that he failed a second drug test while at BC and got kicked off the team. He obviously has some growing up to do...but his physical gifts have never been questioned and fit the W's needs perfectly. If he is available at 36 it is a no brainer.

Let's Go Oakland! Gas, Brake, Dip.

by OaktownFunk on Jun 2, 2007 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

i have to say that sleepys right on this one.

mullin drafted POB

Rodney Carney was still there

'nuff said lol

by travisl212 on Jun 3, 2007 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

And PG/SG Reece Gaines (who?) was drafted #15 by Orlando when David West, Boris Diaw, Josh Howard, Jason Kapono, and Luke Walton were still available.

What's your point?

by jlagace on Jun 3, 2007 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

uhh

my point is that rodney was definately the best player available, but we "needed" a bigman. mully said it himself, "we were thinking big all the way going into the draft"

Rodney Carney would be an awesome nellie baller if you know anything about him and he is a nice player. O bryant is a Dleaguer at this point

Best player available usually works out better then drafting for need

what the hell do you think my point was

by travisl212 on Jun 3, 2007 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're missing my point

Nowhere am I saying that O'Bryant is a good player or that Carney is a bad player. Maybe I didn't make the reason for my post clear.

I'm saying that better players get picked later than worse players all the time, it's just the nature of the beast and scouting isn't a perfect science. I attribute that much more to the drafting of POB than the simple "we needed a big man so our only option was to draft a big man" because there were many many other glaring weaknesses in the Warriors depth chart at the beginning of the season besides that.

I'm not saying we draft another POB, I'm saying we have to draft a player that Nellie can actually use and should be a player that fits some sort of team need rather than giving us more of what we already have surplus of.

by jlagace on Jun 3, 2007 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i feel you

but last year was a perfect example of how we drafted for a need instead of taking the best player (probably carney) and how it looks like a mistake so far

by travisl212 on Jun 3, 2007 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your point

Is a little illogical. Of course drafting is an inexact science: good players get picked high and bad players get picked low all the time. It doesn't change the fact that you increase your chances of success and lower your chances of failure by not limiting yourself to one position.

You're basically arguing that there's no point in quitting smoking because, well, lots of non-smokers get cancer and emphysema too.

Either you draft the Best Player Available or you don't: you can't have it both ways. In my view, an NBA team should always try to maximize its assets. If we had a young 8th or 9th man with talent like Carney or Millsap or Boobie Gibson right now, instead of "absolute zero trade value" POB, he might be the missing chip that could land us an Artest, a Warrick, a Swift, even a Yi or a Garnett. As it stands, we might be just a bit short of chips.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2007 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Misinterpreted again

I don't want the Warriors to limit themselves to one position. I don't think the Warriors HAVE to draft a center, and with the way the draft is panning out, they probably shouldn't.

I just feel that adding another PG or PG/SG or SG is counterproductive. A player like that will get next to no PT and will have little value to other teams around the league.

Let me put it this way: we maximize our odds of the #18 pick being a contributor to the team if he's actually in a position to get playing time. He's not going to mean anything to us if he doesn't spend anytime on the court.

by jlagace on Jun 4, 2007 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

I interpreted you right. You don't think we should draft the Best Player Available. There's only so many ways you can say it.

At the risk of sounding like a damaged MP3 file, at #18, if you can get a guy who can actually play NBA basketball you're way ahead of the game.

A skilled PG (e.g. Acie Law or Javaris Crittendon) would absolutely be "useful." Nellie has stated explicitly that he wants to play Baron only 20-25 minutes during the season to keep him fresh for the playoffs. With Baron's constant ouchies, Jasi leaving, and Monta's questionable PG skills, you could make the case that a PG who can play is the biggest need on this team.
A skilled PG/SG could spell Baron 15-20 minutes a game, and/or allow you to trade Monta, your most valuable trading asset not named Biedrins.
A skilled SG who can play (e.g. Nick Young, Rudy Fernandez) could fill the void at wing left by the departure of Pietrus (and possibly Barnes), and/or allow you to trade Jason Richardson.

Further, your concepts of usefulness and need are extremely shortsighted -- just like our front office's mentality when we drafted Fuller, Foyle, and POB. Lots can happen in six months or a year: trades, injuries, unexpected players blossoming or crapping the bed. Next year at this time our roster could look nothing like it does it now. Having another big guy who can't play and can't fetch anything in trade would be the most "counterproductive" thing of all.

Again, the whole reason we're discussing this is Monta Ellis. At the time we drafted him, it looked like a talented combo guard was last thing we "needed." Using your logic would have ruled him out out of hand. Today, having one of the 4 or 5 best 21 year-olds in the NBA -- a guy who can score at will, play a little backup point guard, or be a possible trading chip for a legit star 4 like Kevin Garnett -- is looking pretty "useful" indeed.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2007 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

p.s.

I think you're overestimating how many minutes a player needs to show GMs and fans that he can ball. Within about 30 total minutes of PT in Monta's rookie season, I think most of us (including NBA GMs) could see that he could play NBA basketball. Within 30 minutes of POB's rookie season, most of us could see he couldn't. If all Monta had done last year is

Make that one dunk in Leandro's grill
Hit that slutch shot to beat the Nets
Dominate the rookie/second year game

His value would still be infinitely greater than POB's.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2007 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you're saying

It's good to see that I'm talking to someone that can backup their statements and knows what they're talking about.

Perhaps I'm just being naive. I want Monta Ellis to become that versatile player that can step in at PG for 15-20 minutes a game, and then also step in for 15 minutes a game at SG. Also, I don't want to see the Warriors put Jason Richardson into a situation where he's now expendable. I don't want to see Ellis or Jrich traded and I don't believe a player we get at #18 will be good enough to fill their shoes.

And I agree whole heartedly with your point about drafting Monta Ellis. I've said before that I like the idea of drafting purely BPA in the second round, because chances are you can't fill a need with a second rounder anyway and you can afford to roll the dice.

by jlagace on Jun 4, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also about POB

I haven't jumped off the POB bandwagon just yet like everybody else has. The kid was drafted at #9 for a reason.

What could you really expect from the guy in his 19-year old rookie season. He was drafted as a project, and that's what he was: a project. It's not like he flopped in the D-League either, he arguably the best rebounder and best shotblocker there. For now, I'm not going to blame Nellie and Mullin for making a "bad selection".

In a year or two from now and he still can't contribute, then I'd say he's a bust. But for now, it's too early to say.

by jlagace on Jun 4, 2007 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I guess what bugged me about the pick at the time was that it was obvious, "safe," and dull. It would have been like picking Robert Swift in Biedrins' year. Honestly, as soon as we knew Rudy Gay wasn't going to slip to us (which totally killed me) I would have preferred to trade down, or out of the draft altogether. You're right that POB still could be something, but I think I'd take a #15-18 pick in this year's draft over POB.

We'll see soon enough, right? Knowing Nellie, I'd be pretty surprised if he just waited around to see who fell to us and then drafted the safest, most obvious player available at #18. At the very least I think we'll see a little maneuvering so he and Mullin can get precisely the mid-rounder they likes best (be it Nick Young, Thad Young, whoever). And I certainly wouldn't rule out a bombshell move involving a guy like Noah or Yi.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 4, 2007 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BPA at #18

After inspecting mock drafts a little more. Acie Law is expected to be taken by the Clippers, and Nick Young somewhere around 12-15. I love how Thadeus Young would fit into our scheme, but he's also expected to be gone to NO or Philly.

So that leaves us with Rudy Fernandez, Josh McRoberts, Tiago Splitter, and Javaris Crittendon. There is also the risk of taking Sean Williams, who still has not come public as to why he was kicked off the team, and is only telling GMs and scouts in private meetings.

I've read some scouts saying Williams is the best shot blocker in this draft hands down, and the only thing that's in question is his work ethic and commitment. I don't care about off the court problems because if we can manage Stephen Jackson, then we can manage any other kid with issues. Williams is considered to be a lottery pick without his problems, do you guys consider him as the BPA (that is likely to be there)? Or do you consider someone else? Obviously if we traded up, we should take Jeff Green or Julian Wright, but most likely we'd have to give up Biedrins or Ellis to move up.

by Mdawg851 on Jun 4, 2007 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Williams is the best shot blocker in this draft

" and the only thing that's in question is his work ethic and commitment"

He would be a good one to take a chance on. You can teach them discipline but you can't teach them body type. He has the size and power to be another Amare. Much prefer him to the skinny commie SF that everyone's promoting. We could draft this kid without trading up and save the money for the guys we need to sign and if he dint work out we could place him on the shelf with POB and the other tall kid we drafted last year and have a collection. Nothing ventured nothing gained, the reward seems pretty good for the risk involved.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2007 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah yes ... the old "NBA body" line

I don't know much about Sean Williams, but just based on where he's projected and historical precedent, you have to figure he's got a much better chance of being a poor man's Chris Taft (Chris Washburn, Yinka Dare, etc. etc.) than he does of being anything close to Amare Stoudemire.

Not saying he isn't worth a gamble, but until I hear otherwise I'm going to assume #18 is a pretty big reach for him. We have two second round picks to play with; I'd just as soon use one of them on Williams (or package them , if necessary) and pick up a real player at #18.

by Sleepy Freud on Jun 5, 2007 3:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monta,..a guy who can score at will?

So Sleepy are you saying he dint want to score against Utah? Maybe his will needs some adjusting then!
Monta's allright but he's no superstar and we've got players who can do certain things better than him. Baron for handles, Jason for rebounds, Pietrus for defense, little Al for 3's, Sjax for attitude, Barnes for artwork, etc. so if we can get a real power forward for monta we'd make things a lot easier for ourselves. I just hope we don't draft another skinny 7 footer. There's no future in that. I want a thug who can bull their way in close and score when the game is on the line and the small ballers are worn out.Lack of a closer is our major flaw.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2007 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we have to draft a player

"that Nellie can actually use"

Nellie won't use any rookies so we might as well pass on the draft if "use" is a requirement!

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 4, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

MP2 not MP3.

by duggie25 on Jun 1, 2007 4:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

he's probably closer to

barbosa than anyone else. more hops, but minus the 3 pointer. and as of now, less ball-handling skills.

both are 2's in mindset & frame-wise, though barbosa looks like he has broader shoulders which could allow him to put on weight.

and both are straight ahead speed guys who basically go "right" all the time. devin harris is also like that but his jumper is even less consistent than these two and his frame is a lot bigger.

the biggest obstacle to his improvement will be his ball-handling which is one of the more difficult areas to improve upon dramatically.

he'll always have problems w/ pick & roll defense, guarding a bigger guard, or guys like ray allen, rip, or redd who'll run him off screens (even if he were to get through them - shooting over him is no problem)

by the evil monkey on Jun 1, 2007 5:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

whoops

i meant "similar frame-wise".

by the evil monkey on Jun 1, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If anyone

I think Monta most closely resembles Devin Harris.

by jlagace on Jun 1, 2007 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He doesn't flop

like a little girl before contact though. Devin Harris is more of an actor than a basketball player.

by Mdawg851 on Jun 1, 2007 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

in fairness

monta does his fair share of flopping.

by the evil monkey on Jun 1, 2007 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you want to see Monta's future

Look at Leandro Barbosa. They have the same thin frame, they both rely on blazing speed. They are both forced into duty at PG because of their size and team.

The difference is that Barbosa has become a very good shooter, and under Nash and D'Antoni, is more than passable as a backup point.

Nelson and Biddy might be similar good influences, because Ellis, like Barbosa is very raw. Neither had the benefit of even 2 years of college ball.

Ellis needs that consistent J. Eventually he might learn to go left with more authority, but his quick spin move is a good enough counter for now. He's a tremendous finisher, mostly on instinct, but he has the raw hops and body control to take a hit any still finish.

This offseason he just needs to watch a ton of game film, study defenses, study his own mistakes. Immediate corrections he needs to make are to dribble lower, dribble with his head up, and protect the ball, first with his back, then with his side.

You guys ever watch Baron when he's being hounded by another point? He has this clever trick, he extends his off-arm out completely, at a 45% angle down below his waist and uses it to ward off the defender's swipes at the ball. Check out some playoff highlights, you'll see him holding off Jason Terry's whole body that one time he picked off an over-the-top inbounds pass and it all the way down. The best part is, it's low and he keeps both his body and the defender's body in the way so refs can't really see it. It's really an ingenius move that I need to start doing. Tricks like that will help Ellis take care of the ball and handle with more confidence when he's calling a play or reading a set defense.

Other things:
Ellis needs to be able to make decisions quicker, because the game and his own body are moving faster than his perceptions. Many of his turnovers and charges are because he either decided what he wnated to do before seeing the defense, or simply didn't know how to react to a help defender.

He could also work on stopping on a dime for a short floater instead of lowering his head and barreling by guys.

I'm not doubting his talents, but at this point he needs to work more on "skill" and "feel". There really is nothing to do but wait for him develop.

I do not believe he will ever be a true point, but a guy like Tony Parker with more athleticism would be a realistic best case scenario.

If he is shifted to the 2 full-time, he could be a Ben Gordon type of instant scorer, but he might have defensive woes because he's not that strong. He'd also need a far better jumper and extend out to 3 point range.

by OptionZero on Jun 1, 2007 5:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would compare Monta

as being a poorman's Gilbert Arenas. Like Arenas, Monta has hops and has shots. I say "poorman" because Monta's shot is pretty inconsistent. I love his penetration to the hole, while makes his game hella exciting. If Monta can improve on his jumper, I bet he'll garner more AI comparisons. To be like AI, Monta will have to prove on a consistent basis that he can score 25 points a night. I like what I've seen so far with Monta. Look for him to continue his arsenal of offensive attacks next season. In no time, he'll be our X-factor to better our position in the West.

by Phil T28 on Jun 1, 2007 6:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Arenas is a decent comparison

and if Monta works on his jumpshot then he has a chance to get to that next level. Monta is often great at getting to the basket, but he could definitely learn to finish with more finesse.

Arenas is a pretty special offensive player and I don't ever see Monta getting to that level, but on the other hand I don't ever see Arenas becoming as good of a defender as Monta.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 1, 2007 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

completely off-base

Arenas has range that extends to several feet beyond the arc, and he was a shooter since his time in Arizona. He is not "speed" guard, he's a jumpshooting guard and thats where he will live or die.

Ellis is much more dependent on penetration; he will likely never have the shot Arenas has.

by OptionZero on Jun 1, 2007 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AI and Monta Comparions

The AI and Monta comparisons are pretty offbase. Iverson has one of the best handles in the league and has excellent court vision. Both are weaknesses in Monta's game. I can't think of a player who's significantly upgraded their handles and court vision while in the league and I don't see Monta ever approaching AI's level in that regard.

Monta Ellis looks to be in the mold of Tony Parker or Bobby Jackson in his prime. Right now I'd rate Monta below Parker and even flopper Devin Harris.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 1, 2007 7:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Atma

Atma, I couldn't disagree with u more. Both are quick, have the same frame when they were 22, and can finish with the best of them at the rim. That's not offbase in my opinion. No one can stop them when their game is On. One on one, they're gonna both blow by u all day. When you're fast, have a j, agile, and can finish at the rim, there's only one guy that u could compare him to. And that's AI.

Bobby Jackson -R u kidding me?

by illmaticwarrior on Jun 1, 2007 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

AI's handle really separates them. Plus AI knows how to draw fouls and get to the line. There's really no comparison when it comes to passing either. Check out AI's career stats for that one.

Unlike Monta Ai isn't just about quickness. AI balls it up no matter who's guarding him. Match Monta against Paker or even Devin Harris and he struggles big time. Monta will never be in AI's league, not that means he can't be a very good player.

Also, don't forget Bobby Jackson was a flat out stud in his prime with the Kings. That's a big compliment for Monta to draw that comparison.

by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 1, 2007 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

People seem to forget that...

Bobby Jackson in his prime would've been a starting PG on most NBA teams and in fact would play a lot of crunch time min for the kings. Jackson was a more seasoned scorer than Monta is now. The thing is, unless Monta makes strides this offseason, I really don't see him being a top tier guard in this league. The NBA is littered with talented guards. Right now, I rank him in b/t Barbosa and Devin Harris, one or two trick ponies. hopefully this offseason he develops and separates himself from the pack.

by ThermoElectro on Jun 1, 2007 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bobby Jackson was a very useful player

in his prime. But Monta is already a more seasoned scorer than Bobby Jackson. Not only is he a better shooter percentage-wise, but he is already scoring more.

In his career Bobby Jackson never averaged more than 15.2 points per game. This past season Monta averaged more than Bobby Jackson did in the prime of his career.

Monta may never be the distributor that Jackson was, but he's definitely a better offensive weapon.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 2, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should also mention

that both Monta and Jackson played on teams that had a lot of offensive fire power. You could make a case that Jackson's scoring was more impressive considering the offensive weapons he had around him at the time, but Monta wasn't exactly the first option either on this team last year. At the same time you could argue that Bobby Jackson's shot was easier to get considering guys like Webber were getting double teamed and Jackson and Bibby were routinely open for threes.

Monta doesn't play a true position, and certainly has his share of flaws but I project him to a better scorer than Bobby Jackson and Devin Harris.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 2, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

make sure that we do not sign MP3 or Barnes?

and how do you plan to replace pietrus' defense and barnes' hustle? This team just needs a little tweaking to go all the way. We were one of the best teams in the league over the final month and into the first round of the playoffs where fatigue and lack of an inside player did us in. An arguement could be made that barnes and pietrus were more important to our late season success than monta was. So we might be better off to put the money into them plus aquire one very good big man and one fair backup true point guard instead of worrying about monta? If monta needs a lot of money we'd be better off to keep jason for his rebounding skills and try to get a new big for monta's and harrington's money. I think they might be the easiest guys to do without. Jason can shoot the 3s as good as little al and can dunk as good as monta while still playing decent defense and grabing more than his share of boards. and pietrus can play the D better than either of them so he stays! barnes I'm not sure about, he might be a one year wonder but if he dint want too much money I'd let him come back to see. He does throw a great hail mary!!

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 1, 2007 10:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

don't underrate Monta

I remember when the Warriors were injury-plagued Monta Ellis stepped it up and averaged something like 18-20 ppg, with a high fg% to boot.

Supposedly he also led the NBA in fast break points, the type of points Nellie likes.

He also got that MIP award.

Don't forget what he did at the Rookie-Sophomore game too.

Oh yeah he's only 21. It ain't easy for a skinny 6'3" 21-year-old to come into this league and do the types of things he's done.

Yeah he didn't really show up during the Playoffs, maybe he was a little intimidated. I think he'll do better the next time he gets the opportunity.

I can easily see him getting 6th-man-of-the-year honors in the next couple years in a Barbosa-type role.

by jlagace on Jun 2, 2007 3:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i hope you can take criticism

b/c you have no eye for talent. while i don't think monta's as good as everyone on this site makes him out to be, pietrus is an average defender who uses his hands too much (resulting in fouls) and jrich is a horrible defender - both make way, way, way too many mental mistakes on the defensive end. jrich misses more assignments in a quarter than most guys do in a game.

maybe your viewpoint has been skewed by guys like dunleavy, diogu, & murphy, but, come on now, how often do you see these guys stymie dribble penetration, hell, even once? even guys like sasha pavlovic dribble by these guys like it's nothing. their only saving grace is that they're athletic enough to occasionally block a shot. but don't mistake that for good defense.

but what about their rebounding? both their #'s are inflated by the fact that they typically don't play w/ any rebounders on their team. to make it simple, if dennis rodman was on this team, everyone else would be averaging less rebounds b/c instead of the 40 this team averages, they may get only 3 more per game b/c of rodman. (43 being about what the avg team gets) but where are the remaining 12 rebounds going to come from? well, they'll be taken from the statistics of others like jrich, baron, al, pietrus, etc, etc, etc.

pietrus is even worse b/c he only gets boards when he plays the 4 position. but the rate he's rebounding from that position is about what a 3 should be getting.

and guys like barnes aren't hard to find. the only difference is the chemistry barnes brang being that he is an old buddy of baron's. unless cowan's willing to pay the luxury tax, which he is not, barnes is gone.

a little tweaking to go all the way? it could be reasonably argued that every other west team other than dallas would of beat us in the 1st round - even the lakers, who seem to own us for whatever reason.

by the evil monkey on Jun 5, 2007 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah pietrus can play defense

But with his stupid moves with fouling and very very bad BBall IQ, i would let him go. Barnes will get his Big paycheck somewhere and it would probably not be with the warriors but hopefully he can stay cheaper than he would want. and Azubuike can step it up and be that swingman pietrus was. Hopefully we can have Monte improve next year on consistant jumpers and better courtvision with handling practices because i think if he doesnt improve, he probably wont get as big a contract we would expect

We are the LOUDEST crowd in the NBA..

by GSwarrior on Jun 1, 2007 11:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Option Zero

How exactly does Gilbert qualify as a "shooter" in your mind? Is it the 42.8% career field goal percentage that he owns, or is it the way he FIRES from long range? When I think of a "shooter" I think of guys like Brent Barry, Michael Redd, Ray Allen and Dirk Nowitzki. These are the players who rely on hitting the jumpshot to get the rest of their game going. I think its wrong to say that Gilbert "lives and dies" by the jumpshot, when he's a guy who can routinely get to the rim.

Maybe I watched a different Gilbert when he played for Golden State, but the guy I saw had both a perimeter game and an ability to get by his man with devastating quickness.

Gilbert and Monta are both scorers. I agree that Gilbert is more of a perimeter player and Monta is more reliant on penetration but still, there are some similarities in their games.

I agree that Gilbert is a better overall shooter than Monta, but I disagree with your assertion that Gilbert is a "shooter" who "lives and dies" by the jumpshot. Anybody who has seen him play knows that this is false.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 1, 2007 11:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The difference is

Ellis will never be the long range threat that Arenas is, and Arenas is far better at getting off his midrange J.

Ellis relies more on raw speed, Arenas doesn't have that blazing quickness. Arenas certainly isn't the pure shooter that Allen or Redd are, but he's a streaky one. The J is a bigger part of Arenas' game than Ellis' is; for Ellis, the J is simply to keep the defense honest, for Arenas, a barrage of 3's is certainly an option. Check out the number of 3's Arenas has taken the last 3 years in Washington, mid-high 500 three's. I sure as heck hope Ellis doesn't take that many...ever.

by OptionZero on Jun 2, 2007 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I pretty much agree with your points. I hope that Ellis continues to work on that mid range jumpshot. If he can hit it like Tony Parker than the defenses won't be able to slack off him.

by Byron Houston We Have A Problem on Jun 2, 2007 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

unique context

the warriors are a perfect fit for Monta, he should recognize that when it's time to resign -

Nelson's style fits his speed

Nelson's flexibility of using Jax or anyone at point hides his liabilities

Monta is also a good fit for us -

as a combo guard, not a PG or SG, because he can slide into either spot playing alongside any combo of perimeter players on our roster

I just don't find all these comparisons compelling, we need to assess Monta based on what he brings that we need & as long as we are likely to lose Barnes and MP we should think long and hard about moving Monta anywhere. Besides, other coaches & GMs are less likely to value his assets in their system as his strengths show in Nelson's.

by hardcore on Jun 2, 2007 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Monta = Parker

that is the best comparison...both have elite quickness - both can finish drives to the hoop in traffic - both are weak 3pt shooters - both are effective midrange shooters. but once again Monta's handles and passing ability put him a bit behind Parker at this point.

Let's Go Oakland! Gas, Brake, Dip.

by OaktownFunk on Jun 2, 2007 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

id say Alex English

quick, smooth and agile... or is that Tribe?

gdubb

by gogomaplata on Jun 2, 2007 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Monta < Parker, et al.

The thing that concerns me the most that I don't think necessarily can be taught at this age (not that Monta is super old or anything) are handles. I don't just mean being able to dribble adeptly with both hands, but being able to change directions, stutter steps, crossovers... which I think are both skill and decision making related. These are things, which I think are very hard to teach.

As of right now, Monta knows how to move in a straight line unable to read defenses, which as we've all seen has led to many charge calls against him. In all these comparisons, folks like AI and Parker have superior handles and hesistation steps (the ability to change speeds, gears) that allows them to get their shot off amongst the trees and on anyone. I'm not saying Parker and AI are equivalent, but they possess skills at 21 (if not younger) that Monta doesn't have yet and I don't think it's possible to transform into that quality of player offensively.

Take note of Richardson AND Antawn Jamison, super athletically gifted players but both lacking tons of fundamentals. Richardon and Jamison have made tremendous strides since they came in through their hardwork, but if you look at them both, they merely minimize their mistakes by not handling the ball the ways that we expect wing players to do.

If Monta doesn't have those handles now or that sort of game that requires twisting and turning his way into the lane -- instead of bulldozing over them -- I highly doubt he will gain those skills in the future. I don't see Monta becoming that type of player (the ones we've mentioned) ever in the future. He's still a great player, but I don't think he's franchise or even Baron's successor.

I'd leave closer to the Bobby Jackson comparisons if anything.